Gates@64
UT...@inreach.com
In 2020, Bill Gates will be 64.
Will we still need him? Will we still feed him?
Will he still be feeding on us?
I'm writing an article for an e/print magazine about Bill's 64th
birthday that future vantage point--roughly a docu-memoir
Citizen-Kane-style. Your comments and speculations
will be greatly appreciated and
cited in my article if used--the more outrageous the better :-).
In any event, I offer this as today's topic
to bend in what I would hope is a nicely warped discussion.
What do you want to see Big Bill doing in 2020?
What do you think he actually might be doing?
Will we all just settle down and become nice cy-burban Windowed
split-level clients by then? Will his mansion be finished?
Will he be fat or thin? Will he grow to look like his
pal Mr. Buffet? Many thanks.
Umberto Tosi (ut...@inreach.com)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
MetaGen
--
I guess that when he is 64, he might have figured out how Apple
made MacOS 7.5.3, or am i being optimistic?????
________________________________________________________________________
| ._ ____ ________ __ _
_. |
| "^*%~. / ___/ __/ / / / / \ / \.~%*^"
Met...@hotmail.com |
| °$°*°à/ / / __/ \/ / ( --O--
)à°*°$° |
| _.~^*./____/___/___/\__/ \ /_\
/.*^~._ |
|
_.~^*_.~^*_.~^*%*¨^¨*%*^~._%*^~._%*^~._ |
| MetAHumaN 1sT.
CLaSS |
|________________________________________________________________________|
Bert Loos
UT...@inreach.com wrote:
>In 2020, Bill Gates will be 64.
>[,...]
>What do you want to see Big Bill doing in 2020?
>What do you think he actually might be doing?
I think he will be instructing his programmers to
bring together the win64s, win64g, win64x,
win64sx and win64lpg API's into one unified
win64 API, incompatible with all previous versions,
and to do so before the completion of the
competition's full 256-bit OS's.
--
Bert Loos (bert...@mech.kuleuven.ac.be) /
KU Leuven - PMA, Celestijnenlaan 300A, \ Haiku double-plus:
B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUM / The object-oriented
Voice:+32-16-322773 Fax:+32-16-322987 \ poetic format.
http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bloos /
jab...@sunspot.tiac.net
bert...@mech.kuleuven.ac.be (Bert Loos) wrote:
>UT...@inreach.com wrote:
>>In 2020, Bill Gates will be 64.
>>[,...]
>>What do you want to see Big Bill doing in 2020?
>>What do you think he actually might be doing?
>I think he will be instructing his programmers to
>bring together the win64s, win64g, win64x,
>win64sx and win64lpg API's into one unified
>win64 API, incompatible with all previous versions,
>and to do so before the completion of the
>competition's full 256-bit OS's.
He might, by then, finally admit that OS/2, and for that matter
AmigaDOS had the right idea... Of course by then even UNIX will be
running in a Window.
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
UT...@inreach.com wrote:
: What do you want to see Big Bill doing in 2020?
Buying Apple computer and putting 200 Microsoft programmers on
the task for finishing Copland, so MS can sell Mac versions of
Word 21 and Excel 21.
Scott
J LEVI
: > Will he still be feeding on us?
: > I'm writing an article for an e/print magazine about Bill's 64th
: > birthday that future vantage point--roughly a docu-memoir
: > Citizen-Kane-style. Your comments and speculations
: > will be greatly appreciated and
: > cited in my article if used--the more outrageous the better :-).
: > In any event, I offer this as today's topic
: > to bend in what I would hope is a nicely warped discussion.
: > What do you think he actually might be doing?
: > split-level clients by then? Will his mansion be finished?
: > Will he be fat or thin? Will he grow to look like his
: > pal Mr. Buffet? Many thanks.
: > Umberto Tosi (ut...@inreach.com)
After loosing his company he'll start a used computer resale business
called OldXT. He will try to sell these computers for an outrageously
high price and no one will buy them. Then someone, seeing his ad in the
paper will say "Didn't he invent BASIC", and someone else will say "No, he
just copied it and sold it to IBM"
A.A. Gerritsen
: >>In 2020, Bill Gates will be 64.
: >>What do you want to see Big Bill doing in 2020?
: >>What do you think he actually might be doing?
:
: >bring together the win64s, win64g, win64x,
: >win64sx and win64lpg API's into one unified
: >win64 API, incompatible with all previous versions,
: >and to do so before the completion of the
: >competition's full 256-bit OS's.
:
: He might, by then, finally admit that OS/2, and for that matter
: AmigaDOS had the right idea... Of course by then even UNIX will be
: running in a Window.
And this all happens in a Windows NT 16.3 shell!
A.A.Gerritsen
Redmond Rose~
J LEVI wrote:
>
> : UT...@inreach.com wrote:
> : >
> : > In 2020, Bill Gates will be 64.
> : > Will he still be feeding on us?
> : > I'm writing an article for an e/print magazine about Bill's 64th
> : > birthday that future vantage point--roughly a docu-memoir
> : > Citizen-Kane-style. Your comments and speculations
> : > will be greatly appreciated and
> : > cited in my article if used--the more outrageous the better :-).
> : > In any event, I offer this as today's topic
> : > to bend in what I would hope is a nicely warped discussion.
> : > What do you think he actually might be doing?
> : > split-level clients by then? Will his mansion be finished?
> : > Will he be fat or thin? Will he grow to look like his
> : > pal Mr. Buffet? Many thanks.
> : > Umberto Tosi (ut...@inreach.com)
>
> After loosing his company he'll start a used computer resale business
> called OldXT. He will try to sell these computers for an outrageously
> high price and no one will buy them. Then someone, seeing his ad in the
> paper will say "Didn't he invent BASIC", and someone else will say "No, he
> just copied it and sold it to IBM"
This week Gates gave out a press release saying he was not resigning
Microsoft and intends to be CEO well into the next decade. Three more
years? Gates is a guest on Jay Leno tonight--late night talk show. Here
is the big joke. Jay is also having Rodney Dangerfield on. Talk about a
Bill Gates roast. MS most likely thinks that because they have NBC
by the balls they can help Gates' reputation and he can go on acting
like a real daddy and family man while the controvery over his overt
womenizing and sexism inside of Microsoft runs rampid.
Dangerfield is one way for NBC to set Gates up. Inside rumor has it that
the MSNBC isn't what NBC thought it would be. Why is everyone in the
computer industry laughing at NBC? Did these fools really think that
everyone in the computer industry was attacking MS for NO REASON? I
wonder if he will walk off if he gets roasted while trying to appear like
a new father and home boy...
Please record this show so we can get it up on the web later. I've
heard rumors that Gates' prenuptual was 10 times as big as John Kennedy
Jr. and Micheal Jackson's. Why Microsoft hasn't dumped their MR PR
group yet no one knows. I keep thinking of the Connie Chung walk out and
was wondering how tempermental Gates is these days. I mean after David
Letterman made an absolute fool out of him who knows what Leno will do?
I can tell you one thing.
I'm going to have some raelly hot stuff on my web in the next week.
Truth or DARE! This time it's real people, mostly attorneys and their
thugs working for Gates. It's really going to get nasty. After 5 years
of retaliation I've heard of every other story about the autistic fool
Bill Gatse, alternately know as the RAINMAN. Who is Andy Evans? Who is
Bruce Butcher? Who is Jon Lazarus? How are Gates' gun men? Who are the
ghost he is afraid of? And which one of his stooges is a plant for the
FBI? It really pays to get someones Social Security Number. BTW, that
is avaliable on my web site. Both Gatse and Allens. BTW, Allen's spooks
are just about as bad. A JOHN is a JOHN even if he is the President of a
corporation.
5 years of hacking. 5 years of investigation. 5 years of passing stuff
off to government agents. 5 years of rumors and interviews. They say,
JOAN you have to write a book. I say, if I made a profit from this I
never would be believed. I'm getting old and close to death. I have
nothing to loose but the truth I leave behind.
So how much did Gates pay Melinda French to Marry him. How much was the
baby worth? Who was the baby maker? Gee, Bill and Michael Jackson are
sure looking more and more alike all the time.
J~
http://www.nwlink.com/~rosarium/
If you want the BASIC FAX here is where to get them. You have to sue
Bill Gates the way I did to find out all this stuff. No GAG on this gal!
They made a big mistake. Next time MS decides to fuck over a women they
better consider whether she is a computer engineer and how well she can
hack.
http://
Jerome Schroeder
>
>So how much did Gates pay Melinda French to Marry him. How much was the
>baby worth? Who was the baby maker? Gee, Bill and Michael Jackson are
>sure looking more and more alike all the time.
>
>J~
>
How long have you been off your meds. Joan, your paranoia is getting
boring.
Jerry
fedo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
He may never make 64 if he breaks his neck in the tranpoline room of his
new house. On the other hand, his house may still not be finished by
then.
Mike Jones
Redmond Rose~ wrote:
>
> So how much did Gates pay Melinda French to Marry him. How much was the
> baby worth? Who was the baby maker? Gee, Bill and Michael Jackson are
> sure looking more and more alike all the time.
>
> J~
>
What's the problem, didn't Bill even leave a couple of bucks on the
nightstand?
MJ
Fall Gelb
In 2020, President Bill (the II) will approve the Comprehensive
Recovery Bill, provisions of which include:
Disallowance of all medical care for those experiencing radiation
sickness, and those over 65 (with exceptions).
Allowing usage of prison labor to clean up harzardous areas
around the former cities of San Franciso, Denver and Sacramento.
Comprehensive pardon of all crimes prepetrated by military
officers in the recent civil war.
Allowing grant of naval bases in Alaska and on the Pacific coast
to East Asian forces in exchange for cash.
Formally declaring the occupation of the eastern part of the
former US by EC forces to be 'illegal'.
The bill will not address the issue of survivors (and dependents)
of the Midwestern death camps.
max
--
___________________________________________________________
max==ba...@crl.com KYFHO Freedom < > Slavery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D.M.
One has to wonder if the US would not be better off without the
overbearing east coast, off the list of places in the world that the
west coast supports.
David A. Kaye
Redmond Rose~ wrote the quoted material below:
" Bill Gates roast. MS most likely thinks that because they have NBC
" by the balls they can help Gates' reputation and he can go on acting
" like a real daddy and family man while the controvery over his overt
" womenizing and sexism inside of Microsoft runs rampid.
The word is "rampant"; with spelling like that you'll never work for
Microsoft. I have nothing against Bill Gates. All his life he has warned
people that he does business in the same way he plays poker. He takes any
advantage people leave open for him. Certainly, I've made lots of money
on his stock, and if I hadn't sold off the shares I'd be worth about $4
million myself today.
Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him. Microsoft makes
offers all the time to buy companies and/or software from developers of
cutting edge stuff. However, before such an offer is made, Bill covers
his tracks by making sure that Microsoft can also do it in-house if the
company sets their price higher than what it would cost Microsoft to
develop it.
Some examples are Crystal Reports and DoubleSpace. Apparently both
companies set their prices too high and now a report format very similar
to Crystal Reports (but MUCH better) appears in Access, and Microsoft
came out with DriveSpace, which I've been told works better than
DoubleSpace (I've never used DoubleSpace, so I don't know).
Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
"certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
Microsoft built a better network server.
Another example is Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft had a product called Multiplan
as early as 1984. When it looked like Lotus 1-2-3 was running out of
steam, Microsoft transformed two of its products, Multiplan and Chart
into Excel. Excel is far and away the best spreadsheet program.
By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
" [....] I mean after David
" Letterman made an absolute fool out of him who knows what Leno will do?
" I can tell you one thing.
This was calculated. Notice that Bill Gates had a very geeky-looking
hairdo back then. Accidental? Not on your life. He was trying to
portray himself as a geek in order to create appeal for Windows95. By
doing so, Microsoft created the most successful software launch EVER.
People who didn't even know how to turn on a computer were CAMPING OUTSIDE
STORES waiting to be first in line to buy it. Why, because Bill Gates was
made up to look like a harmless guy everybody knows. It was
non-threatening to all those macho guys out there who don't know a damned
thing about computers.
In short, Bill Gates and Microsoft DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.
--
Copyright 1996 The BBC was chartered by Parliament in 1922
David Kaye as a private, not public broadcaster.
Paul S.
David A. Kaye wrote:
> Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
> AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him. Microsoft makes
Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
> Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
> though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
> It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
> "certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
> plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
> Microsoft built a better network server.
That Netware is better than NT is only in the eye of the beholder. Both
have their plus and minuses, but the business industry has not embraced
NT wholeheartedly yet. Netware remains a large portion of the installed
network systems in the world. And Windows NT has its own share of
certifications to boot.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Paul S.
http://www.mindspring.com/~cchrist/prophecy
"He that knows anything worth communicating, and does not
communicate it, let him be hanged by the neck."-- Talmud
+---------------------------------------------------------+
David A. Kaye
Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
" Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
have done it in 1984.
" That Netware is better than NT is only in the eye of the beholder. Both
" have their plus and minuses, but the business industry has not embraced
" NT wholeheartedly yet.
Give 'em time. We sell software to major institutions. Nobody even
talks about Novell anymore. They missed the boat by not making a more
user-friendly interface. Once again, the reason Microsoft usually wins
is because they've usually developed the kind of software people like
best. I mean, seriously, does anybody still use WordPerfect anymore?
With all its bugs and inconsistent interface? Just a few diehards.
" Netware remains a large portion of the installed
" network systems in the world.
So does DOS.
--
Copyright 1996 Air escaping from icebergs can be heard
David Kaye by sonar one hundred miles away
D.M.
> The word is "rampant"; with spelling like that you'll never work for
> Microsoft.
Obviously you know little about programmers. Most are terrible after
years of squizing words into 8 chars, it almost comes natural to mispell
everything. You want perfection in english you go to an english teacher
with an anal problem, you want programming you go to the conceptualy
wise.
> Bill covers
> his tracks by making sure that Microsoft can also do it in-house if the
> company sets their price higher than what it would cost Microsoft to
> develop it.
wrong.
If he thought he could do it in house, he would never hire out, unless
the usual time constraint existed. Their real problem is paying bottom
dollar for talent, and robbing the baby carrage when they graduate from
colledge. It is evident in the less than perfect code they sometimes
produce and some of the second rate interfaces, that look more like
colledge graduation projects than advanced interfaces.
> Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
Do you mean that all the employees at novell have been told to never
mention the name of the company they work at anymore.
> though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
> It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
> "certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
> plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
> Microsoft built a better network server.
BS. Try an anonomous named pipe on a dial up connection from a computer
outside of your domain, with an unknown user.
>WindowsNT which is virtually plug-and-play
Either you are or you are not, again with the verbs for image sake, and
to show your computer wonderfulness, when in fact they mean virtually
nothing.
> By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
> of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
> File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
> the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
wrong again, its true that some of their good stuff was origionally
created for the mac, but there is tons of stuff that will never run on a
mac and was never meant to. They were far along with word processing on
the PC long before Apple got into really deep trouble.
> This was calculated. Notice that Bill Gates had a very geeky-looking
> hairdo back then. Accidental? Not on your life.
Wrong again. He is a nerd, and if you really think that portraying him
as sometime odd in the eyes of man than you know less about marketing,
than you really believe, and even less about your own species. I can see
it now we will replace the Marbourgh man with wimps are us. Because real
macho men would never but their cigerettes fro anyone who threaten them.
> He was trying to
> portray himself as a geek in order to create appeal for Windows95. By
> doing so, Microsoft created the most successful software launch EVER.
> People who didn't even know how to turn on a computer were CAMPING OUTSIDE
> STORES waiting to be first in line to buy it. Why, because Bill Gates was
> made up to look like a harmless guy everybody knows. It was
> non-threatening to all those macho guys out there who don't know a damned
> thing about computers.
All thoes macho guys, boy are you full of superfulous, TV generated,
biased, politically correct inexpierenced crap.
> In short, Bill Gates and Microsoft DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.
Tell that to the fools who have to help them find and fix the thousands
of bugs they produce with evey modification level. Because that just
an't so, they are as human as you and as such shall never know
perfection or right. Garbage in garbage out.
D.M.
> That Netware is better than NT is only in the eye of the beholder.
Wrong it is obviously old, old is as old does, and exists for one reason
in the business community, it would cost too much to replace it.
> but the business industry has not embraced NT wholeheartedly yet.
Yes they have. One business client of mine after another is eliminating
novell just as soon as it cost justifible to put new code on the desks
of clerks, when most of them can not tell the difference.
D.M.
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
>
> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
> have done it in 1984.
>
> " That Netware is better than NT is only in the eye of the beholder. Both
> " NT wholeheartedly yet.
>
> talks about Novell anymore. They missed the boat by not making a more
> user-friendly interface. Once again, the reason Microsoft usually wins
> is because they've usually developed the kind of software people like
> best. I mean, seriously, does anybody still use WordPerfect anymore?
> With all its bugs and inconsistent interface? Just a few diehards.
>
> " Netware remains a large portion of the installed
> " network systems in the world.
>
> So does DOS.
>
> --
> Copyright 1996 Air escaping from icebergs can be heard
> David Kaye by sonar one hundred miles away
By the way this is not worth copyrighting nobody would try and steal the
above.
Redmond Rose~
Jerome Schroeder wrote:
>
> >
> >So how much did Gates pay Melinda French to Marry him. How much was the
> >baby worth? Who was the baby maker? Gee, Bill and Michael Jackson are
> >sure looking more and more alike all the time.
> >
> >J~
> >
> boring.
>
> Jerry
I'm not now and never have been on medication of any kind. You have to
have a verifiable mental illness. What I have is a 5 year history of
hate mail, threats on the phone and other weird people with guns and what
not involved with either Microsoft or Mr. Gates personally. Let's face
it. Bill Gates didn't like that I attempted to sue his company for the
physical damages I was left with due to sexual harassment. He is above
the law and so is Microsoft. We have a REAL Department of Justice
investigation on Microsoft now and it's not exactly what I would call
anti-trust. More like criminal harassment of people, not just me, but
hundereds of people in my community. Do you know what is happening to
ex-Microsoft employees when they leave and attempt to start their own
business? Well, I do.
Here is another ex-employee's sight. It's really sick to live around
here and have to deal with the hate and harassment by a small group of
people in Microsoft and around Gates.
J~
[[[[-------------------t04D34T3R-------------------]]]]]
[snip]
>Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
>AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him. Microsoft makes
>offers all the time to buy companies and/or software from developers of
>cutting edge stuff. However, before such an offer is made, Bill covers
>his tracks by making sure that Microsoft can also do it in-house if the
>company sets their price higher than what it would cost Microsoft to
>develop it.
>
>Some examples are Crystal Reports and DoubleSpace. Apparently both
>companies set their prices too high and now a report format very similar
>to Crystal Reports (but MUCH better) appears in Access, and Microsoft
>came out with DriveSpace, which I've been told works better than
>DoubleSpace (I've never used DoubleSpace, so I don't know).
Yes, Micro$oft even got sued over Drivespace. They blatantly stole
this technology from Stac (sp?).
>Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
>though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
>It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
>"certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
>plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
>Microsoft built a better network server.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :^) That certainly is debateable.
[snip]
>By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
>of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
>File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
>the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
Oh, I see, that explains why Windoze is so pathetic.
>This was calculated. Notice that Bill Gates had a very geeky-looking
>hairdo back then. Accidental? Not on your life. He was trying to
>portray himself as a geek in order to create appeal for Windows95. By
>doing so, Microsoft created the most successful software launch EVER.
>People who didn't even know how to turn on a computer were CAMPING OUTSIDE
>STORES waiting to be first in line to buy it.
Many of those people are now either deceased or under heavy counseling
and rehabilitation programs. HAHA, I just got a letter from someone
today who was on the verge of throwing his computer away because of
the horror involved when trying to use a tcp/ip stack in Win95 other
than the M$ one. (Winsock32)
>Why, because Bill Gates was
>made up to look like a harmless guy everybody knows. It was
>non-threatening to all those macho guys out there who don't know a damned
>thing about computers.
It was an attempt to hide the fact that Bill is a merciless dictator
who sells software ONLY for profit. Ok, maybe not only for profit,
but also some sort of desire to control the entire industry and
"guide" it. I don't think he realizes that things would have been
fine without him.
>In short, Bill Gates and Microsoft DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.
Yes, except for the quality of their software, they usually have all
bases covered.
Grandmaster Demonlord Toadeater
------t...@bway.net-------
9 PLANS ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE
http://www.bway.net/~toadeatr
Kurt Gharbi
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
> AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him. Microsoft makes
> offers all the time to buy companies and/or software from developers of
> cutting edge stuff. However, before such an offer is made, Bill covers
> his tracks by making sure that Microsoft can also do it in-house if the
> company sets their price higher than what it would cost Microsoft to
> develop it.
>
Bill also figures out if his lawyers can hold off any copyright or
patent infrigement lawsuits that are bound to come up. Bill has to buy
companies now because nobody is stupid enough anymore to get into a
"technology partnership" with Microsoft.
> Some examples are Crystal Reports and DoubleSpace. Apparently both
> companies set their prices too high and now a report format very similar
> to Crystal Reports (but MUCH better) appears in Access, and Microsoft
> came out with DriveSpace, which I've been told works better than
> DoubleSpace (I've never used DoubleSpace, so I don't know).
>
Don't cry for the guy who wrote DoubleSpace. He sued Microsoft for
patent infringement and won. Microsoft then agreed to license his
patents for something like thirty million dollars. BTW, Wang also sued
Microsoft for patent infringement and won twenty six million dollars
allowing them to come out of bankruptcy. The patent was for OLE.
>
> By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
> of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
> File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
> the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
>
Not entirely true. Yes, Microsoft did its first stint as an application
developer for the Mac. Before that all they did were compilers and DOS.
How else did you think they figured out how to reverse engineer the GUI?
As for Word and Excel, they are still the top selling word processor and
spreadsheet for the Mac. Also they became the top applications for the
PC because Bill pulled the head fake of the century. While he was
telling the world that they should develop for OS/2 (which at the time
Microsoft was still partners with IBM), we was telling his own people to
develop for Windows. So when Windows comes out, who is the only company
that has applications for it? You guessed it.
>
> In short, Bill Gates and Microsoft DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.
>
> --
> Copyright 1996 The BBC was chartered by Parliament in 1922
> David Kaye as a private, not public broadcaster.
Don't tell that to people in Japan who bought into MSX. The hardware was
manufactured by a number of companies including Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic
and others. The operating system was developed by Microsoft. It was
intended as a home computer/game system. Go to Japan now and try to find
one.
Kurt Gharbi
Kurt Gharbi
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
>
> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
> have done it in 1984.
>
Also not entirely true. The original lawsuit concerned OS/2 and the
defendants were Microsoft, IBM, and HP (who was including for some legal
technicality). Part of the PowerPC deal was that Apple would drop legal
action against IBM. After Microsoft's breakup with IBM over OS/2, the
suit was refiled to cover Windows. Microsoft did bring Xerox into court
with them to claim that the Mac was based on "prior art". The judge
ruled that Apple had made enough changes to the interface to make it
their own and get the hell out of my courtroom. What won it for
Microsoft is that they produced a 1985 license from Apple to use their
interface for Windows 1.0 and ALL FUTURE UPDATES! Now if only Apple had
charged Microsoft a per copy fee for Windows.
>
> --
> Copyright 1996 Air escaping from icebergs can be heard
> David Kaye by sonar one hundred miles away
Kurt Gharbi
David A. Kaye
Someone wrote the quoted material below:
" It was an attempt to hide the fact that Bill is a merciless dictator
" who sells software ONLY for profit.
He's never said any different. Remenmber, it was Bill Gates and Paul
Allen who stopped people from passing around the original MS BASIC code
at user group meetings. And why not? They worked hard on it.
Anyone who works overtime days and nights for 21 years developing software
and/or managing a software company would be literally insane to *not* want
to do it for profit. Microsoft is an AMAZING company because they are
large yet still flexible. Bill Gates and company managed to turn
Microsoft around from no Internet involvement to massive Internet
connectivity, not the least of which are modules which create web pages
directly out of Word 6.0 documents and Access databases.
Make no mistake about it. Bill Gates is arrogant, ruthless, and not the
kind of guy to be messed with, which IBM discovered when they forgot to
get an exclusive license for MS DOS from him.
On the other hand, Microsoft has domestic partners benefits, has good
telephone support (at least they ANSWER their phones and they have people
who know what they're talking about), occasionally puts out freebie
software such as the Internet Assistant for Word 6.0, and puts most other
large software companies to shame with their professionalism.
No, I don't believe everything they say. I don't believe half of it. I
was sent by Pacific Bell to a Microsoft conference some months back to
attend what was basically a sales pitch. I thought it was garbage, and
that Pac*Bell managers were stupid to pay us consultants to go to the
thing. And all we got were pastries and coffee.
However, I also watch what they put out and what areas they enter. They
move in where others aren't doing their jobs. I predict the next place
they'll turn is hardware. The Microsoft Mouse is already the largest
selling mouse. Why? Nobody out there was making a decent mouse. I love
the MS Mouse. It works perfectly in my hand. Next came the ergonomic
keyboard. Some people swear at them, but many swear by them. The
keyboard is now a success, too. I guess they'll enter whatever other
areas exist where people aren't doing their jobs. Computer furniture? A
high-capacity floppy to replace the A: drive? Perhaps a computer that
shuts itself down when inactive?
But there are also areas where Microsoft has said they will not go. I'm
not about to reveal them here, since I'm in one of them, but MS won't get
into areas which are not mass-market office or home. So, expect that the
CAD area will remain wide open, as will MIDI, etc.
" Yes, except for the quality of their software, they usually have all
" bases covered.
It takes 3 tries for them to get the software right, but when they do I'd
say they do a very good job of it. I've used lots of software since 1972
and in every area where I have a need for the kind of software that MS
makes, I prefer their software, with the single exception of web browsers.
I still prefer Netscape.
--
Copyright 1996 Lawn clippings are America’s
David Kaye most thrown away trash.
David A. Kaye
Kurt Gharbi wrote the quoted material below:
" [....] Bill has to buy
" companies now because nobody is stupid enough anymore to get into a
" "technology partnership" with Microsoft.
True to a large extent. No doubt about it: anybody who deals with
Microsoft has to make sure they know *exactly* what they're doing. He's
made no bones about the fact that he plays to win, first, last, and
foremost.
" Not entirely true. Yes, Microsoft did its first stint as an application
" developer for the Mac. Before that all they did were compilers and DOS.
I didn't mean that Mac development was the only thing MS did, but that it
was the largest part of their early sales as end-user software. I don't
think they offered any software initially for the PC except for DOS.
" How else did you think they figured out how to reverse engineer the GUI?
The classic meeting between Jobs and Gates had Gates ask whether the Mac
GUI was hardware or software. A Jobs assistant at the meeting said
"software" and immediately Jobs yells "SHUT UP!!!" at him. Of course,
Jobs stole the design from Xerox, which (as usual) was too disorganized
to do anything about it. The Xerox stories I could tell...but that's
another thread.
" [....] Also they became the top applications for the
" PC because Bill pulled the head fake of the century. While he was
" telling the world that they should develop for OS/2 (which at the time
" Microsoft was still partners with IBM), we was telling his own people to
" develop for Windows. So when Windows comes out, who is the only company
" that has applications for it? You guessed it.
You forget that as recently as 5 years ago, WordPerfect outsold MS Word
about 2 to 1, and Excel was barely in the race compared with Lotus 123.
As recently as 3 years ago WP for Windows was the most used Windows word
processor. But, WP didn't stay on top of their game; neither did Lotus.
Recently at CompUSA I saw the "latest" version of WordPerfect from two
different companies!
Bill Gates has shown his hand many times. He's said quite plainly that
they do not have *any* division between operating systems and applications
departments. There is no "wall", no privacy. Thus, anybody who develops
for Windows has to remember that MS applications developers always have
the upper hand.
But REMEMBER: OS/2 runs Windows programs, and quite well. OS/2 is not
dead. In fact, every National Public Radio station in America has an OS/2
system, installed just months ago -- this is what controls their new
digital satellite links, recording, studio controls, logging, and
inter-station email. Soon, entire NPR member station offices will network
with OS/2 as budget allows. So, there are alternatives, even for people
who've made investments in Windows programs.
--
Copyright 1996 Americans spend $10 million
David Kaye each day on potato chips
David A. Kaye
Kurt Gharbi wrote the quoted material below:
" Also not entirely true. The original lawsuit concerned OS/2 and the
" defendants were Microsoft, IBM, and HP (who was including for some legal
Granted. I'm wrong about the origin.
" Microsoft is that they produced a 1985 license from Apple to use their
" interface for Windows 1.0 and ALL FUTURE UPDATES! Now if only Apple had
" charged Microsoft a per copy fee for Windows.
Awwww...jeez...I do vaguely remember that. Once again, it looks like Jobs
blew it. As for the per copy royalty, to my knowledge they always pay a
flat fee, but always charge a per-copy price to their customers, even in
stuff like ROM chips.
--
Copyright 1996 The cornea in the eye takes in
David Kaye oxygen directly from the air
Shea F. Kenny
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D., (d...@crl.com (David A.
Kaye)), had an open container of the following goopinol:
}However, I also watch what they put out and what areas they enter. They
}move in where others aren't doing their jobs. I predict the next place
}they'll turn is hardware. The Microsoft Mouse is already the largest
}selling mouse. Why? Nobody out there was making a decent mouse. I love
}the MS Mouse. It works perfectly in my hand. Next came the ergonomic
}keyboard. Some people swear at them, but many swear by them. The
The mouse has been trapped by the keyboard imbedded, touch pad.
Far, far, far superior to any mouse.
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)
713-0782 Need a Taxi at Seatac Airport? 713-0782
4p.m. to 3a.m. 7-days.
Moonbear is a proud sponsor of this post.
Paul S.
D.M. wrote:
> Wrong it is obviously old, old is as old does, and exists for one reason
> in the business community, it would cost too much to replace it.
Like I said, it is a matter of opinion and of what the client needs. If
you are setting up a 3-5 computer LAN with users using WFW or even
Windows 95, you don't need to run an NT server.
> > but the business industry has not embraced NT wholeheartedly yet.
> Yes they have. One business client of mine after another is eliminating
> novell just as soon as it cost justifible to put new code on the desks
> of clerks, when most of them can not tell the difference.
I do contracts for a few Fortune 500 companies and although some of them
realize that NT is the way of the future, a lot of them have kept
Netware and have it running quite nicely and efficiently and it suits
their needs.
Jerry Rowe
In <57neac$h...@crl4.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes plenty of tripe:
[...]
>Some examples are Crystal Reports and DoubleSpace. Apparently both
>companies set their prices too high and now a report format very similar
>to Crystal Reports (but MUCH better) appears in Access, and Microsoft
>came out with DriveSpace, which I've been told works better than
>DoubleSpace (I've never used DoubleSpace, so I don't know).
Correction of tripe: Bill Gates and company stole the code for Doublespace from Stacker
and friends. And found themselves in court, where they lost. Stacker and Co. showed
how it was true and won. M$ *then* [after losing] licensed the code legally.
>Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
>though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
>It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
>"certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
>plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
>Microsoft built a better network server.
Correction again. Both Novell *and* IBM Warp Server outperform NT as file and print
servers. As application servers, NT had to run *4* CPU's to barely outrun Warp Server
running *1* CPU and lost on the 1 to 1 CPU comparison. The tests were in PCWeek
last spring. There are other tests with similar results.
Now that Warp Server can scale to *64* processors there is no contest anywhere
here. In fact, Warp Server is alone in its ability to support up to 2000 Lotus Notes
Clients. NT is good for only 1000.
And don't give me that "NT is easier to adminstrate" stuff either. Warp Server is
drag and drop everything. And even Novell has gone GUI now.
You sir, simple do not know the competition. Period.
>By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
>of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
>File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
>the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
Everyone knows M$ Mac software performance stinks to high ****. Mac users
complained loudly about the latest versions.
[other junk deleted]
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=-
Jerry L. Rowe - Certified OS/2 Engineer
Certified OS/2 Lan Server Administrator
Certified OS/2 Lan Server Engineer
JLR...@holli.com - http://www.holli.com/~jlrowe
Team OS/2 - Warping the Internet
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=-
Is Microsoft a Tiger?
There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the Tiger.
David A. Kaye
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Daniel A. Morgan wrote:
> The above is a reasonably accurate portrayal of Gates and company with
> one major exception. Many if not most of the previous robber barons
> turned into philanthropists when they got the hunk of the pie.
[....]
Rockefeller waited until he was ancient to begin any kind of philanthropic
work. I can't think of anything Leland Stanford did besides start a small
college on some farm land he had. The Crockers? The Huntingtons? Mark
Hopkins? I can't think of anything these robber barons did. Carnegie did
indeed distribute his wealth at an earlier age, but I don't believe until
he was in his 50s.
Bill Gates has already endowed several universities -- places he didn't
even attend such as Stanford, before he turned 40.
> Gates is,
> based upon wealth, the most miserly, inconsiderate, waste of a human
> being ever to suck blood from our community. [....]
He's already said he's going to give away over 90% of his wealth in a few
years. By tightly managing his company he has made multimillionaires out
of hundreds, if not a cool thousand Microsoft employees. And anybody who
stuck some money away in Microsoft stock at any time in its publicly
traded history has made money on it. So, you're upset that he's not
giving away the store now? You want to kill the golden goose?
Janos Szamosfalvi
Jerry Rowe (jlr...@holli.com) wrote:
:
: Correction again. Both Novell *and* IBM Warp Server outperform NT as file and print
: servers.
Well, we'll be switching to NT because Novell has a limit on the number of
connections.
D.M.
Paul S. wrote:
>
> D.M. wrote:
>
> > Wrong it is obviously old, old is as old does, and exists for one reason
> > in the business community, it would cost too much to replace it.
>
> Like I said, it is a matter of opinion and of what the client needs. If
> you are setting up a 3-5 computer LAN with users using WFW or even
> Windows 95, you don't need to run an NT server.
They do not need a server at all depending upon what they percieve they
need. But I will not say that compairing apples and oranges is a matter
of opinion, because it is not, it is usually a lack of knowledge, and
due to a lack of inquisitness.
Casper
In <329FEB...@ix.netcom.com>, Kurt Gharbi <lord...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>>
>> Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
>>
>> " Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
>>
>> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
>> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
>> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
>> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
>> have done it in 1984.
>>
>
>defendants were Microsoft, IBM, and HP (who was including for some legal
>action against IBM. After Microsoft's breakup with IBM over OS/2, the
>suit was refiled to cover Windows. Microsoft did bring Xerox into court
>with them to claim that the Mac was based on "prior art". The judge
>ruled that Apple had made enough changes to the interface to make it
>their own and get the hell out of my courtroom. What won it for
>interface for Windows 1.0 and ALL FUTURE UPDATES! Now if only Apple had
>charged Microsoft a per copy fee for Windows.
Does this mean that Apple can file against NT 4.0?
Kurt Gharbi
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> Kurt Gharbi wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Also not entirely true. The original lawsuit concerned OS/2 and the
> " defendants were Microsoft, IBM, and HP (who was including for some legal
>
>
> " interface for Windows 1.0 and ALL FUTURE UPDATES! Now if only Apple had
> " charged Microsoft a per copy fee for Windows.
>
> blew it. As for the per copy royalty, to my knowledge they always pay a
> flat fee, but always charge a per-copy price to their customers, even in
> stuff like ROM chips.
>
> --
> Copyright 1996 The cornea in the eye takes in
> David Kaye oxygen directly from the air
Actually it wasn't Jobs. He had already been booted. It was the former
sugar water salesman John Sculley. According to rumor, the Apple board
had panicked when first year Mac sales were below expectation and gave
Jobs the heave-ho. Gates then went to Sculley and demanded that Apple
give him a license for the interface or he would stop all Mac
development. I guess he learned something from all those poker games he
played at Harvard. He got his license with no strings and as far as I
know no fee. I'm guessing, but I think that Apple thought that they
couldn't duplicate the Mac interface and for five years they were right.
Anybody out there remember Windows 1.0 or 2.0? Apple forgot two
important things: 1) What technology can create, technology can
duplicate (apologies to E. E. "Doc" Smith); and 2) never believe your
own propaganda.
Kurt Gharbi
Kurt Gharbi
Casper wrote:
>
> In <329FEB...@ix.netcom.com>, Kurt Gharbi <lord...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >David A. Kaye wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
> >>
> >> " Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
> >>
> >> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
> >> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
> >> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
> >> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
> >> have done it in 1984.
> >>
> >
> >defendants were Microsoft, IBM, and HP (who was including for some legal
> >action against IBM. After Microsoft's breakup with IBM over OS/2, the
> >suit was refiled to cover Windows. Microsoft did bring Xerox into court
> >with them to claim that the Mac was based on "prior art". The judge
> >ruled that Apple had made enough changes to the interface to make it
> >their own and get the hell out of my courtroom. What won it for
> >interface for Windows 1.0 and ALL FUTURE UPDATES! Now if only Apple had
> >charged Microsoft a per copy fee for Windows.
>
Probably not. Because it has the magic word "Windows" attached to it. In
any case, Apple would probably not want to go down that road again. That
lawsuit took about nine years to resolve with all the appeals thrown in
and was a public relations disaster.
Kurt Gharbi
David A. Kaye
D.M. wrote the quoted material below:
" Obviously you know little about programmers. Most are terrible after
" years of squizing words into 8 chars, it almost comes natural to mispell
I'm a programmer myself, having started with the old Datapoint minis in
1972, graduating to 6502 machine code, then to flavors of BASIC. Sloppy
spelling is a sign of sloppy thought. Just as a person can switch from
speaking English to Spanish, they can switch writing from Pascal to
English.
" wrong.
" If he thought he could do it in house, he would never hire out, unless
" the usual time constraint existed. Their real problem is paying bottom
Cost versus cost. Some projects are dirt cheap to buy from a company that
has already produced them, taken the heat from dissatisfied customers, and
debugged for the next release.
" dollar for talent, and robbing the baby carrage when they graduate from
" colledge.
Did you purposely misspell "misspell" and "college" and other words to
prove a point? Do you think anyone will take you seriously? Do you
think this is a professional way in which to act, when anyone reading
this newsgroup could be your next business partner or contracting client?
As for getting fresh graduates at low pay, no doubt about it. On the
other hand, the graduates are getting a lot, too. They get to put
"Microsoft" on their resume instead of "Cyberzcxzcx". If you were going
to spend $60-80-120k on a programmer and had a project to get out on time,
which applicant would YOU hire? Of COURSE Microsoft knows this. But so
what? Microsoft is the highest quality image in software today, for
better or worse.
" It is evident in the less than perfect code they sometimes
" produce and some of the second rate interfaces, that look more like
" colledge graduation projects than advanced interfaces.
There once was a newspaper with the slogan "First with the news, first
with the corrections". I've known Microsoft since Gates wrote 4k BASIC
for the MITS Altair. Every time they introduce a new product the first
releases are GARBAGE. The only exceptions I can think of were Word 1.0
for the Mac and Multiplan for the Mac. Of course, some people think
the first release of MS BASIC for the Trash-80 was great, too...
So, you've seen MS in action for some years. The first time they do
something they do CRAP. It took 3 full releases for them to get Windows
right. Visual Basic 1.0, 2.0, were 100% garbage. VB 3.0 is great. VB
4.0 missed the boat as they shifted technology again. I understand VB
5.0 has fixed most of this and will again be smooth.
While MS is slipping and falling on their asses with the first releases
of software why isn't anyone taking their ideas, improving on them, and
running with them? About the only people at least TRYING are Starfish
and Borland.
" Do you mean that all the employees at novell have been told to never
" mention the name of the company they work at anymore.
I happen to think Novell is very good, but their interface is back in the
DOS ages. Sure, it's mysterious, but the days of mystery are slowly
slipping away. People don't want hocus pocus sysadmins they have to pay
decently. They want plug-and-play appliances. This is EXACLY where MS is
going, but few other companies appear to be going that way.
" Either you are or you are not, again with the verbs for image sake, and
" to show your computer wonderfulness, when in fact they mean virtually
" nothing.
What I mean by "virtually plug-and-play" is that NT is headed in that
direction and has gotten awfully close. My associate, who is in his
mid-60s and has never been a sysadmin in his life and has had to reinstall
win3.1 on EIGHT occasions in the past 6 months, managed to get NT up and
running in about 2 hours.
" They were far along with word processing on
" the PC long before Apple got into really deep trouble.
Huh? They bought Word from another company. Until the Windows versions,
Word for the PC didn't act anything like Word for the Mac at all. It was
a totally different product built by different people. Remember the
disappearing menu at the bottom of the screen with the incomprehansible
words? Remember the bizarre codes? Press "T" to "transfer" files to
disk? If there's one thing about MS, they recycle everything as long as
its useful. NOTHING about the original Word for the PC was at all like
the previous Word for the Mac.
" Wrong again. He is a nerd, and if you really think that portraying him
" as sometime odd in the eyes of man than you know less about marketing,
" than you really believe, and even less about your own species. [....]
Just fucking LOOK AT THE PUBLICITY PICTURES. His hair changes style and
gets darker ONLY for the release of Windows 95, and his glasses appear to
get thicker. Afterward it's back to his old style. Pure publicity.
Go to any Microsoft forum (and I've been to many). Note that no matter
how formal the occasion, the programmers wear sweaters over open collars
with no ties. Just like Nike, IT'S THE IMAGE. Once again you
underestimate Gates and company. They have so much riding on everything
they do, they plan EVERYTHING. You can bet that if someone's late for a
meeting or drops his pencil or shows a slide upside down or fails to talk
about something it was likely planned that way.
" All thoes macho guys, boy are you full of superfulous, TV generated,
" biased, politically correct inexpierenced crap.
I make my living in computers. I've owned Microsoft stock. I've worked
for companies such as Bank of America, Xerox, Quebecor, Pacificorp (a
major electric and phone utility), and have owned several businesses. I
don't even watch TV, though I did purposely stay up and watch the
Letterman show to see how much time Gates would manage to get -- 17
minutes -- 3.3 million viewers -- no cost to him. We don't have to like
Bill Gates, and if I ever meet him I may or may not, but just sit back and
take notes. He's fascinating to watch because he's a great teacher.
" Garbage in garbage out.
Thank you; you've demonstrated this concept so well, especially with your
spelling.
--
Copyright 1996 In SF's Mission District, every fast food chain has some
David Kaye part of their menu in Spanish, except for Taco Bell.
David A. Kaye
D.M. wrote the quoted material below:
" By the way this is not worth copyrighting nobody would try and steal the
" above.
It's automatically generated. People have stolen my writings twice that I
know of; once in a magazine and another time in a book. Besides, it's
just a warning -- everything written since 1978 in the USA is
automatically copyrighted at the time of authorship. The user has the
burden of proof to show that it was purposely put into the public domain.
However, many/most people are UNAWARE of this and think that everything is
free to steal. Not so.
--
Copyright 1996 14,000,000,000 pounds of waste just from ships
David Kaye are dumped into the oceans each year.
[[[[-------------------t04D34T3R-------------------]]]]]
d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>Someone wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" It was an attempt to hide the fact that Bill is a merciless dictator
>" who sells software ONLY for profit.
>
>He's never said any different. Remenmber, it was Bill Gates and Paul
>Allen who stopped people from passing around the original MS BASIC code
>at user group meetings. And why not? They worked hard on it.
>
>Anyone who works overtime days and nights for 21 years developing software
>and/or managing a software company would be literally insane to *not* want
>to do it for profit. Microsoft is an AMAZING company because they are
>large yet still flexible.
Ok, fine they're amazing and flexible, just like any good Panzer
division should be :^) Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that
their business tactics interfere too much with the quality of their
software. They're not the only ones who do this, but creating
standards in order to secure marketshare instead of creating better
standards has a terrible effect on software in the long run.
>Bill Gates and company managed to turn
>Microsoft around from no Internet involvement to massive Internet
>connectivity, not the least of which are modules which create web pages
>directly out of Word 6.0 documents and Access databases.
Yeah, what genuis. There were shareware and freeware add-ons that did
this before M$ figured out that it's possible. The rest of their
internet policy has become: "either you use M$ products to access it,
or you can't get in". They haven't IMPROVED anything, they're using
Windoze dominance to control the growth of the internet, shifting it
from an open system to a proprietary one.
>Make no mistake about it. Bill Gates is arrogant, ruthless, and not the
>kind of guy to be messed with, which IBM discovered when they forgot to
>get an exclusive license for MS DOS from him.
Sure, but he doesn't care about the users benefit or creating better
products. Who actually likes M$ software? I've asked that several
times to many people, almost everyone who's used anything else has a
totally different perspective than someone who's only been using M$
Word and Windoze. If M$ lost it's OS dominance, I'd be willing to bet
their application software would not be able to compete.
>On the other hand, Microsoft has domestic partners benefits, has good
>telephone support (at least they ANSWER their phones and they have people
>who know what they're talking about),
You must have gotten lucky that day. Usually there's just as long a
wait as any other company.
>occasionally puts out freebie
>software such as the Internet Assistant for Word 6.0, and puts most other
>large software companies to shame with their professionalism.
As I've said before, shareware and freeware equivalents were around
before M$ came in.
>No, I don't believe everything they say. I don't believe half of it. I
>was sent by Pacific Bell to a Microsoft conference some months back to
>attend what was basically a sales pitch. I thought it was garbage, and
>that Pac*Bell managers were stupid to pay us consultants to go to the
>thing. And all we got were pastries and coffee.
But why support them if you know what they are doing?
>However, I also watch what they put out and what areas they enter. They
>move in where others aren't doing their jobs. I predict the next place
>they'll turn is hardware. The Microsoft Mouse is already the largest
>selling mouse. Why? Nobody out there was making a decent mouse.
That's ridiculous, no one else was making a decent mouse? What about
Logitech as one example? Well,
>I love
>the MS Mouse. It works perfectly in my hand.
Ok, you love the M$ mouse! :^)
>Next came the ergonomic
>keyboard. Some people swear at them, but many swear by them. The
>keyboard is now a success, too. I guess they'll enter whatever other
>areas exist where people aren't doing their jobs. Computer furniture? A
>high-capacity floppy to replace the A: drive?
There's already plenty of high-capacity floppy drives that work
flawlessy, there's no need for M$ to come along with some proprietary
standard now.
>Perhaps a computer that
>shuts itself down when inactive?
I thought these already exist?
>But there are also areas where Microsoft has said they will not go. I'm
>not about to reveal them here, since I'm in one of them, but MS won't get
>into areas which are not mass-market office or home. So, expect that the
>CAD area will remain wide open, as will MIDI, etc.
I don't think there are areas where they will not go if there isn't a
good reason.
>" Yes, except for the quality of their software, they usually have all
>" bases covered.
>
>It takes 3 tries for them to get the software right, but when they do I'd
>say they do a very good job of it. I've used lots of software since 1972
>and in every area where I have a need for the kind of software that MS
>makes, I prefer their software, with the single exception of web browsers.
>I still prefer Netscape.
I can't say I like any M$ software much. I think most of it is too
unstable and bloated.
Bruce Ediger
d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>Anyone who works overtime days and nights for 21 years developing software
>and/or managing a software company would be literally insane to *not* want
>to do it for profit. Microsoft is an AMAZING company because they are
What an incredibly *small* vision of people, their potential and what they
might or might not want to do. Are there no alternatives in your mind
to cut-throat competition and charging whatever the market will bear for
the next quarter?
--
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
This article brought to you by Bill Gates, Inventor of the Internet
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
Michael Burr
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.961130...@crl6.crl.com>,
>years. By tightly managing his company he has made multimillionaires out
>of hundreds, if not a cool thousand Microsoft employees. And anybody who
>stuck some money away in Microsoft stock at any time in its publicly
>traded history has made money on it. So, you're upset that he's not
>giving away the store now? You want to kill the golden goose?
Kill the "golden goose"?? Get a clue. Last I checked Microsoft was
incorporated. Gates personal fortune has little to do with the fate
of Microsoft these days.
I have to agree with the previous poster - Bill is incredibly miserly.
Ted Turner who is upset with the charitable records being established by
his fellow billionaires recently railed against them. Worth magazine
subsequently compiled some figures of the charitable giving of the
countrys wealthist individuals. It was published in the November issue.
IN THE LAST 10 YEARS BILL HAS GIVEN AWAY 0.33% OF HIS WEALTH!
(According to the Worth magazine figures).
Think about that figure. If the average person with a 50K networth gave
at this level it would be $165 in 10 years - or $16.50/yr. How can you
call this anything but miserly?
------------
Michael Burr: mb...@halcyon.com
Renaissance Man wannabe ---- Have you hugged your planet today?
Chris Mansfield
>Many of those people are now either deceased or under heavy counseling
>and rehabilitation programs. HAHA, I just got a letter from someone
>today who was on the verge of throwing his computer away because of
>the horror involved when trying to use a tcp/ip stack in Win95 other
>than the M$ one. (Winsock32)
this is a good point, and i think of this every time i read an article or talk
to someone that suggests microsoft coded win95 in such a way as to make it
difficult for non-microsoft software to work properly on it. (but to be fair,
it is usually the tcp/ip stack thing that is cited.)
the inclusion of internet explorer with practically every microsoft title
released these days doesn't do much to discourage these thoughts, at least for
me.
>Yes, except for the quality of their software, they usually have all
>bases covered.
LOL!
David A. Kaye
Kurt Gharbi wrote the quoted material below:
" had panicked when first year Mac sales were below expectation and gave
" Jobs the heave-ho. Gates then went to Sculley and demanded that Apple
" give him a license for the interface or he would stop all Mac
" development.
Ohhhhh...fascinating. This matches another trick Gates pulled that I
especially don't like him for: Apple produced a development tool called
Macintosh BASIC. Bill Gates wanted no competition for MS BASIC. He told
Apple that he would pull the license for MS BASIC in the Apple II's ROM
chips (!) unless they handed over the entire source code for Macintosh
BASIC and took it off the market. A friend at the time, Scot Kamens,
wrote *the* definitive book on Macintosh BASIC, which circulated around
the stores for years, but the language itself was never released.
" I guess he learned something from all those poker games he
" played at Harvard. He got his license with no strings and as far as I
" know no fee. I'm guessing, but I think that Apple thought that they
" couldn't duplicate the Mac interface and for five years they were right.
No question that Microsoft is ruthless. No question that after you shake
hands with Bill Gates it is necessary to count all your fingers. He's
working for Microsoft, of which he owns 23%. Every business decision he
makes will be an effort to benefit Microsoft. However, unlike most people
in the business he understands BOTH technology and marketing; and unlike
most people in the bigger companies he is a hands-on manager, not a flunky
coasting on million dollar salaries and perqs.
--
Copyright 1996 A raindrop reaches a top speed
David Kaye of 22 miles per hour
David A. Kaye
Someone wrote the quoted material below:
" software. They're not the only ones who do this, but creating
" standards in order to secure marketshare instead of creating better
" standards has a terrible effect on software in the long run.
Yet, people didn't complain when Netscape did this with the Mozilla
extensions to HTML 2.0, except those of us who had to write compatible
HTML. In this instance, MS actually encouraged participation in the
standards committee for HTML 3.0. This is actually kind of funny, since
MS Internet Explorer 3.0 does not use server push (not a standard in HTML
3.0) and all Netscapes above about 1.2 do. Therefore anyone with a
Netscape browser, even an old one, can get live video -- but with the MS
Explorer they get either a static picture or nothing at all.
" internet policy has become: "either you use M$ products to access it,
" or you can't get in". [....]
I don't know about you, but I'm using Win95, but using the Trumpet winsock
with Netscape for the PPP stuff I do. I don't use the Microsoft Network
either. Everything works fine.
" They haven't IMPROVED anything, they're using
" Windoze dominance to control the growth of the internet, shifting it
" from an open system to a proprietary one.
I just don't see how you can make this claim.
" Sure, but he doesn't care about the users benefit or creating better
" products. Who actually likes M$ software? [....]
Nearly everyone who has used it. Excel is better than Lotus 123. Word is
better than WordPerfect (which even diehard WP users are finally
realizing), Access is better (certainly faster) than any other comparably
priced DBMS. Delphi is considered better than MS Visual Basic, however,
but it's not a BASIC so people used to BASICs are loathe to try learning
Delphi's Pascal syntax. And as evidenced here, IS people in companies are
throwing out Novell Network as soon as they can; they like NT better.
" You must have gotten lucky that day. Usually there's just as long a
" wait as any other company.
I've called MS for support from time to time. In addition to online
handholding they have fax-back articles via a TOLLFREE number, as well as
their downloadable knowledge bases. How many other companies publish
virtually every question their tech support staff gets? Sure, it cuts
down on tech support costs, but it also shows the world that MS products
do indeed have bugs. When the bug is bad enough MS will issue a patch
free, or at least offer a workaround. Try getting THAT out of Lotus.
" As I've said before, shareware and freeware equivalents were around
" before M$ came in.
In the same manner? All you need to do is select the HTML template and
the Word 6.0 button bar changes to HTML-specific functions. You can
instantly write HTML pages that work, or you can open an existing document
and save in HTML format. Pretty nifty. And it was free, no charge, no
shareware screen begging you to buy.
" But why support them if you know what they are doing?
I'm simply trying to tell the truth as I see it. I've already stated what
I like and dislike about Microsoft and Bill Gates. I'm not interested in
cult worship either for or against him or MS. I just want the facts and
let the chips fall as they will.
" That's ridiculous, no one else was making a decent mouse? What about
" Logitech as one example? Well,
I've used Logitech mice. I use one now at work. I've never liked the
feel as much as with the MS Mouse, especially for long period usage where
I'm coding for maybe 8 or 10 hours at a time. I'm thinking of switching
to the MS Mouse at work. The only reason I haven't is laziness and not
wanting to go shopping at a computer store. I hate computer stores.
" There's already plenty of high-capacity floppy drives that work
" flawlessy, there's no need for M$ to come along with some proprietary
" standard now.
If there are high-capacity floppy drives, why aren't they being
distributed with the hardware? Instead we get anemic 1.44 meg floppies as
standard equipment. Sure, there are Zip drives, but nobody's packaging
them with computers. There's a standard waiting to be born right there.
" I thought these already exist?
Laptops, sure. It is said that 11% of electricity in the USA is now
consumed by computers which are left on, idle during non-business hours.
Win95 at least is using the Energy Star standard so that the monitor will
power down if set correctly, but the computer is still on.
" I don't think there are areas where they will not go if there isn't a
" good reason.
Bill Gates has made it clear where they will go: they want to sell as much
as possible to the mass market. So, instead of seeing $75,000 programs
designed for architects (yes they exist), you see $250 programs designed
for general office use. MS will not touch the specialized markets, except
for developers, because developer tools feed directly into their platform.
The company I work for sells software to our clients. Our clients then
pay us a $1,500 fee for each of *their* clients they enter into their
systems. Many many software companies operate that way. There is no way
Microsoft is going to go after our market.
" I can't say I like any M$ software much. I think most of it is too
" unstable and bloated.
No question that Microsoft's goal is to fill up hard drives. For the
first time I can remember, they have actually put out a version of a
program that is smaller than its predecessors; it's the Win95 lite for
appliances or something. I don't know much about it.
Considering the encounters I've had with other software out there, I
can't say I'd call MS software unstable from a comparative standpoint.
--
Copyright 1996 Bats consume 400-500 mosquitoes an hour.
David Kaye
David A. Kaye
On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Daniel A. Morgan wrote:
> You've just got to be kidding. You probably think Bill's new house will
> be beautiful if it is ever completed too.
You seem to think I'm a Bill Gates or MS worshipper. I'm not, just as I'm
not a loyalist to one platform or another. I'm simply telling what I see
is the truth. I think Bill Gates' new home is the ugliest thing to be
constructed since the Nike missle base silos of the 1960s. He could have
had a Hearst Castle; instead he's building the world's most expensive bomb
shelter.
> This is just plain garbage. Access is not backward compatible with
> itself. Try to convert a version 7 app to run under version 2.
This is true. Access 2.0 was the best. I develop using it through both
the Access and VB environments.
> much slower than Paradox For Windows. It crashes Novell and NT networks
> with 20 concurrent users.
Bank of America is using it with 300 users and about 600,000 records and
hasn't had this problem at all.
> I hope Microsoft is paying you for such drivel.
Why do you hope that? Is it because you want to think that the only
positive things people write about Microsoft are paid for by them? The
FACT is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of users are happy
with Microsoft products. I'm simply telling it as I see it. Once again,
I do not worship Microsoft; I don't have any religious zeal about any of
this.
If IBM comes out with better stuff and decides to put some muscle behind
marketing it PROPERLY, you can bet I'll have good things to say about
them. I've already said about their OS/2 being well-implemented in over
400 public radio stations across the USA controlling their satellite audio
feeds, recordings, scheduling, and email.
David A. Kaye
Michael Burr wrote the quoted material below:
" Kill the "golden goose"?? Get a clue. Last I checked Microsoft was
" incorporated. Gates personal fortune has little to do with the fate
" of Microsoft these days.
I know something about the stock market, having been a trader in it. If
Bill Gates sells his shares, Microsoft's value will plummet; it may drop
to 1/10th its value. Why? Microsoft made the mistake of building itself
around a cult figure, Bill Gates. If he decides to sell his shares, the
average investor will think he has some inside knowledge about some
problem or other, and the average investor will panic. Soon, few people
will want MS shares.
Lately, Microsoft is revamping their image a bit, putting Steve Ballmer
into the spotlight more often. This is good strategy because it will make
Microsoft look more like a team effort, but it will be years before
Ballmer or anyone else can help dim the spotlight on Gates.
Compare MS with IBM. Does anybody know who the chairman or president of
IBM are? If either of them sold their IBM shares, IBM's stock would drop
a few points for the same reason I quoted above. But few people would
panic. Not so in MS's case. Bill Gates is hot restaurant chatter. Just
today at a local coffeehouse someone was telling Bill Gates jokes.
Because of this high profile, Gates is MARRIED to Microsoft and Microsoft
is MARRIED to him. Microsoft's financial future depends on him and his on
its.
" I have to agree with the previous poster - Bill is incredibly miserly.
For a man of his financial stature, yes. For a man of his age, no. How
many other 40-year olds do you know who make substantial charitable
contributions today? Give him a little time, then we'll see.
" Ted Turner who is upset with the charitable records being established by
" his fellow billionaires recently railed against them.
At least Bill Gates hasn't sat down at a formal dinner with a reporter for
the Washington Post, looked down her dress and said, "Nice breasts." Of
course, this was also a maneuvering tool designed to disarm his
adversaries into thinking he was just a bumpkin. Not so. Turner is as
shrewd as Gates. However, did Ted Turner, who was already rich at age 40
from his dad's billboard firm, begin giving big charity donations at that
age? Not that I'm aware of.
Microsoft could go down the drain just like so many other computer
companies, and while fighting to stay afloat they could exhaust their
money, and Bill's wealth along with it. It's happened to lesser
companies. It nearly happened to IBM and Next. It did happen to Wang,
Commodore, Computerland, IMSAI, SOL, VisiCalc (remember them?), Ashton
Tate, etc.
Give him a few years and let's see what he does.
Jerry Rowe
NT has a limits as well.
Actually, as far as licensing goes Warp Server is the most generous. If you have a
licensed client that is good enough. A copy of WFWG, Warp Connect, etc all have the
code in them to connect to Warp Server. But as I recall, with NT you have to buy client
licenses.
Larry Edwards
David A. Kaye (d...@crl.com) wrote:
: [...]
: companies. It nearly happened to IBM and Next. It did happen to Wang,
: Commodore, Computerland, IMSAI, SOL, VisiCalc (remember them?), Ashton
: Tate, etc.
Actually Wang Lab.s is still around with revenues of about $1billion
if I remember correctly ... mostly large gov. contracts I
believe. Their annual report is on their WWW site.
Larry Edwards
Juergen Rally Fischer
David A. Kaye (d...@crl.com) wrote:
> they'll turn is hardware. The Microsoft Mouse is already the largest
> selling mouse. Why? Nobody out there was making a decent mouse. I love
> the MS Mouse. It works perfectly in my hand. Next came the ergonomic
mhm, I might err but isn't the serial mouse data rate limit the reason
why the mouse on PCs still jerks around , so even
todays-dozens-mega-bytes-per-second gfx-cards-blitters can't help
even if they could shift entire screen data 70Hz ?
the mouse of my 7-Mhz-chipset-toy-homecomputer, whith optic sensors
that work very reliable, moves the mousebutton constant 50Hz (and if
I were running on a PC Monitor, constant 70Hz).
The cpu time needed to handle the pointer move is even not worth
mentioning running a 7Mhz 68000 cpu, so GUI will still be 50Hz
response even if cpu is eniterly down (no big deal with 7Mhz ;) doing
calculations. features provided by a realtime operating system.
please don't tell about genious PC mice, jerking mouse on 133Mhz beasts,
it makes toy-computer-users laugh ;D
> keyboard. Some people swear at them, but many swear by them. The
> keyboard is now a success, too. I guess they'll enter whatever other
when the Windows95 monitor is out ? maybe with built-in logo, so
everytime you blank the screen, it pops up ? would be the best
method to get the logo 14 milliseconds after doing a reset.
> areas exist where people aren't doing their jobs. Computer furniture? A
> high-capacity floppy to replace the A: drive? Perhaps a computer that
> shuts itself down when inactive?
oh, even more, it will shutdown when active ;)
nessesary to change the screenmode. ROTFL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
fisc...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) =:)
http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~fischerj/
^- dont forget this char
Maury Markowitz
> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
> have done it in 1984.
Well I've used a Star, and it doesn't have a trash can. That's the Alto.
> Give 'em time. We sell software to major institutions. Nobody even
> talks about Novell anymore.
Really? Then why was 35% of new NOS installations Novell and only 33%
NT? Over the last year Novel GAINED on NT in the NOS market, a distinct
reversal of the past.
> They missed the boat by not making a more
> user-friendly interface. Once again, the reason Microsoft usually wins
> is because they've usually developed the kind of software people like
> best.
:-) Now I know you're joking. The reason Microsoft wins is because
they package a bunch of otherwise mediocre products together and offer
them at a superb price. They were doing this before anyone else, and that
got them the market share - buy Word and you get Excel. Ok, Excel's not
1-2-3, but is it worth it to drop a few hundred bucks on?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <57neac$h...@crl4.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
> Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
> AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him.
As the story goes, Bill went to Apple, not the other way around.
> Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
> though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
> It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
> "certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
> plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
> Microsoft built a better network server.
You're joking right? Do you actually know anything about NT? Have you
actually looked at the courses, schools, classes, videotapes and other
paraphernalia for becoming NT certified? It costs at least as much, or
more.
Maury
The...@eat.my.justice
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:45:31 -0800, "D.M." <dw...@foothill.net> wrote:
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>>
>> Paul S. wrote the quoted material below:
>>
>> " Then why did Apple sue Microsoft over the Windows interface?
>>
>> They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
>> from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
>> the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
>> then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
>> have done it in 1984.
>>
>> " That Netware is better than NT is only in the eye of the beholder. Both
>> " have their plus and minuses, but the business industry has not embraced
>> " NT wholeheartedly yet.
>>
>> Give 'em time. We sell software to major institutions. Nobody even
>> talks about Novell anymore. They missed the boat by not making a more
>> user-friendly interface. Once again, the reason Microsoft usually wins
>> is because they've usually developed the kind of software people like
>> best. I mean, seriously, does anybody still use WordPerfect anymore?
>> With all its bugs and inconsistent interface? Just a few diehards.
>>
>> " Netware remains a large portion of the installed
>> " network systems in the world.
>>
>> So does DOS.
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 1996 Air escaping from icebergs can be heard
>> David Kaye by sonar one hundred miles away
>
>By the way this is not worth copyrighting nobody would try and steal the
>above.
Bill Gates might.
The...@eat.my.justice
On 29 Nov 1996 11:42:04 -0800, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>Redmond Rose~ wrote the quoted material below:
>" Bill Gates roast. MS most likely thinks that because they have NBC
>" by the balls they can help Gates' reputation and he can go on acting
>" like a real daddy and family man while the controvery over his overt
>" womenizing and sexism inside of Microsoft runs rampid.
>
>The word is "rampant"; with spelling like that you'll never work for
>Microsoft. I have nothing against Bill Gates. All his life he has warned
>people that he does business in the same way he plays poker. He takes any
>advantage people leave open for him. Certainly, I've made lots of money
>on his stock, and if I hadn't sold off the shares I'd be worth about $4
>million myself today.
>
>Let's look at some facts: Microsoft developed the Windows interface only
>AFTER Steve Jobs went to Microsoft and SHOWED it to him. Microsoft makes
>offers all the time to buy companies and/or software from developers of
>cutting edge stuff. However, before such an offer is made, Bill covers
>his tracks by making sure that Microsoft can also do it in-house if the
>company sets their price higher than what it would cost Microsoft to
>develop it.
What Microsoft does is takes the best they can copy from any OS out
there and put it into theirs. I myself don't think there is anything
wrong with that because in the long rub you end up with better
products. It is however a little scummy.
>Some examples are Crystal Reports and DoubleSpace. Apparently both
>companies set their prices too high and now a report format very similar
>to Crystal Reports (but MUCH better) appears in Access,
Actually, if you have done any serious report writing, you would find
Crystal reports to be much easier and much more powerful than the
capabilities of Access's report writing. I am surprised you are
actually trying to compare the two.
>came out with DriveSpace, which I've been told works better than
>DoubleSpace (I've never used DoubleSpace, so I don't know).
>
>Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
>though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
>It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
>"certify" people in it.
Ever hear of MSCE? This certification is at least as difficult
compared to CNE.
> Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
>plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
>Microsoft built a better network server.
>
>Another example is Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft had a product called Multiplan
>as early as 1984. When it looked like Lotus 1-2-3 was running out of
>steam, Microsoft transformed two of its products, Multiplan and Chart
>into Excel. Excel is far and away the best spreadsheet program.
Again, another example of Microsoft taking the best from other
applications and adding it to theirs.
>By the way, does anyone realize that at one time Microsoft developed most
>of its software for the MACINTOSH! Yes. Word, what is now Excel, and
>File (now expanded into Access) were all developed for the Mac. But when
>the Mac started foundering, Microsoft shifted development to the PC.
>
>" [....] I mean after David
>" Letterman made an absolute fool out of him who knows what Leno will do?
>" I can tell you one thing.
>
>This was calculated. Notice that Bill Gates had a very geeky-looking
>hairdo back then. Accidental? Not on your life. He was trying to
>portray himself as a geek in order to create appeal for Windows95. By
>doing so, Microsoft created the most successful software launch EVER.
>People who didn't even know how to turn on a computer were CAMPING OUTSIDE
>STORES waiting to be first in line to buy it. Why, because Bill Gates was
>made up to look like a harmless guy everybody knows. It was
>non-threatening to all those macho guys out there who don't know a damned
>thing about computers.
>
>In short, Bill Gates and Microsoft DO EVERYTHING RIGHT.
>
>--
>Copyright 1996 The BBC was chartered by Parliament in 1922
>David Kaye as a private, not public broadcaster.
>
Bruce Ediger
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>them at a superb price. They were doing this before anyone else, and that
>got them the market share - buy Word and you get Excel. Ok, Excel's not
I think you're forgetting the "market disruption" caused by the OS/2 ->
Windows 3.x switcheroo. The big PC software companies had bought in to
the "OS/2 is the Future" mythos, and were developing almost exclusively
for DOS and OS/2 in the '88-90 time frame. Then, M$ suddenly says that
Win3.x and NT are the future. Just accidentally, M$ has Windows versions
of Word, Excel, etc, while Lotus has only an OS/2 version of 1-2-3.
Whoops! Shucks, sorry about that!
Bruce Horn
In article <maury-02129...@194.125.100.1>, ma...@softarc.com (Maury
Markowitz) wrote:
> In article <57o2t8$j...@crl6.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>
> > They tried. Then Microsoft pointed out that the Mac interface was lifted
> > from the Xerox Star interface. Having worked at Xerox I've seen Star and
> > the Mac interface looks a lot like it, even down to the trash can. Xerox
> > then tried suing Apple, but a judge decided it was too late; they should
> > have done it in 1984.
>
> Well I've used a Star, and it doesn't have a trash can. That's the Alto.
>
Sorry--thanks for playing. The Alto never had a trash can; besides, there
were many different systems running on the Alto--which one are you
mis-remembering? The Lisa was the first machine to have a trash can, drag
and drop, etc. based on a prototype of the Mac Finder. I worked at both
Xerox, in the Smalltalk group (LRG) and Apple (Mac). The Mac interface
didn't work at *all* like the Star. Check out
http://www.portal.com/~jimk/horn.txt
for more info.
Sigh. It's amazing how history and truth are both so changeable...
Bruce Horn
maschine
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> " That's ridiculous, no one else was making a decent mouse? What about
> " Logitech as one example? Well,
>
> I've used Logitech mice. I use one now at work. I've never liked the
> feel as much as with the MS Mouse, especially for long period usage where
> I'm coding for maybe 8 or 10 hours at a time. I'm thinking of switching
> to the MS Mouse at work. The only reason I haven't is laziness and not
> wanting to go shopping at a computer store. I hate computer stores.
You forgot to mention that you are a masochist, oh well, to each their own:)
>
> " There's already plenty of high-capacity floppy drives that work
> " flawlessy, there's no need for M$ to come along with some proprietary
> " standard now.
>
> If there are high-capacity floppy drives, why aren't they being
> distributed with the hardware? Instead we get anemic 1.44 meg floppies as
> standard equipment. Sure, there are Zip drives, but nobody's packaging
> them with computers. There's a standard waiting to be born right there.
Actually, I believe that Power Computing is shipping internal Zip drives in their Macintosh
Clones (It might be UMAX though..)
>
> Copyright 1996 Bats consume 400-500 mosquitoes an hour.
> David KayeEd
P.S. david, I really enjoy your random bits of trivia that you use in your Sig. files.
David Whitney
|>In article <57o2t8$j...@crl6.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
|>
|>they package a bunch of otherwise mediocre products together and offer
|>got them the market share - buy Word and you get Excel. Ok, Excel's not
I think this has been a fascinating discussion, and I'd like to thank
everyone for their mostly civil contributions (especially David Kaye for
not rising to the many pieces of bait laid out). I've enjoyed reading
it. I don't like Microsoft much, and it's not because all their
products are bad, several are quite good (versions 3 and up), but most
of their products are too fragile and uncommunicative, and that doesn't
cut it in software engineering, or any engineering.
Microsoft is a business juggernaut, and I think we all know that. Is
Gates ruthless? Heck yes. Is his take-no-prisoners,
what-ever-it-takes-to-dominate approach to software contrary to the
prevailing culture in the programming world? Most definitely (or at
least what the culture once was and still is for many of us). I can
never seem to get over the fact that Microsoft can't let well enough
alone. I mean, why must they reinvent everything that others have done
so well? Take OpenGL, an industry-wide standard for 3D graphics. MS
goes and develops Direct3D which does nothing to enhance what's already
available, and is generally held to be inferior (it is even slower than
SGI's Windows OpenGL implementation -- which mysteriously was removed
from the market after its introduction this summer). Apparently this is
good business. But destructive as anything for we programmers and end users.
Bill Gates pretty much single handedly took over the software industry
with this sort of tactic by taking advantage of *every* chance he got.
Is it OK to have no ethics in poker? Yes. Is this OK in software
production? It seems people are saying yes. Would this approach be OK
in the bridge building business? I would hope not. "We'll get the
third bridge right, just give us time. Oh, and you'll have to drive
across in third gear or you'll be stopped. But don't worry, we'll only
inform people with signs that flash 'gear error' when they don't comply".
I would love nothing more than to write programs for the world's most
popular platform. But I don't because it is such a pain dealing with
all the cruft in Windows. And I love programming.
I went over to a friends house to use his Windows 95 Pentium to play a
game. It took us an hour and a half to install it off CD because it
would just fail and not tell us what we were doing wrong. He also had a
peripheral he was trying to get working (which had been sitting unused
next to the computer for a year). I got it working for him after
blindly messing with COM ports and the like. My inlaws have a 486 that
they could not use for 2 years except a few DOS progams because of some
configuration IRQ problems. I fixed it for them last year. It broke
again a few months back and I can't send them email anymore.
Hoping not to start a Mac v. PC debate, the Macintosh interface is still
far superior, in my opinion, to Windows 95's copy. Win95 is a vast
improvement, but is still a pain to an average user. For example, I
stuck a game CD in and waited. Nothing happened. Oh, I have to look
under "My Computer", then click 'E:'. Hmm, intuituve. Later, with the
CD taken out I tried to run the program again (since the CD window was
still open on the desktop). I double clicked. "Path not valid" or
something equally cryptic came up. I thought I broke something, but
eventually realized the CD had been taken out. Why doesn't Win95 not
say "Hey, put the CD back in"? This is what computers are supposed to
do. Help us. How come after 5+ years, Microsoft still can't write a
friendly OS when Gates' stated intention is to make PC's accessible to
the masses? Wizards are nice, but life should not be hell outside of
wizards. With a Mac, errors happen, but I'm told how to fix them and go
on. In the CD example, I would stick a CD in, a window of the CD's
contents would pop up and I would double click the game icon. Period.
If the CD were out and I double click, a window would say "Please put
the disk 'Cool Game' back in." Why can't M$ do the same? I've never
had a problem in 12 years of owning a Mac that prevented me for more
than 10 seconds from doing what I wanted to do, because most everything
was consistent, and non-fatal failures happened gracefully. (Yes bombs
are still a pain, but they happen on all platforms). If M$ must copy, I
wish they would copy everything.
Yes Microsoft makes lots of money. As a programmer, I still have little
respect for their ethics. Can you imagine where we might be today if
Microsoft really spent time "getting it right"? A PC on every desktop.
Too bad so few of them work to their potential.
-Dave
_____________________________________________________________________
David Whitney | Cooper: Wanna know why I'm whittling?
Virtual Environments | Truman: OK, I'll bite. Why are you whittling?
| Cooper: Because that's what you do in a
| town where a yellow light still means
dwhi...@cs.stanford.edu | slow down, not speed up.
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <57otmk$a...@crl10.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes...
>True to a large extent. No doubt about it: anybody who deals with
>Microsoft has to make sure they know *exactly* what they're doing. He's
>made no bones about the fact that he plays to win, first, last, and
>foremost.
Yup. And he will stop at nothing to achieve his greedy ends. I say, fuck him
and boycott his shoveware. Like someone else said, I resent being forced to
dance to his tune and pay for it. For someone who is used to real multiuser
computing with real memory protection, having the unwashed crotch of bill
gates and his shoveware insinuated on me is an insult. Fuck shoveware!
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - tom.o...@jhu.edu
JHUVMS system programmer - http://jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu/~ecf_stbo/
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
'The Internet'... is not a valid Win32 application, bill. Boycott bg shoveware!
Maury Markowitz
In article <Bruce.Horn-ya02318...@news.mm.qnet.com>,
Bruce...@alumni.cs.cmu.edu (Bruce Horn) wrote:
> http://www.portal.com/~jimk/horn.txt
>
> for more info.
Thanks! And you're right, I am confusing the Star and Alto.
Maury
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
David A. Kaye (d...@crl.com) wrote:
: Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
: though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
: It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
: "certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
: plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
: Microsoft built a better network server.
This is inaccurate -- Novell, LANtastic, and other networks are falling
by the wayside because everyone is standardizing on TCP/IP. NT has TCP/IP
built into it, as does Win95 -- as long as networking is built into the
operating system, then there's not going to be a demand for third
party products. Has there ever been a third party networking protocol
for Apple or UNIX computers?
: Another example is Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft had a product called Multiplan
: as early as 1984. When it looked like Lotus 1-2-3 was running out of
: steam, Microsoft transformed two of its products, Multiplan and Chart
: into Excel. Excel is far and away the best spreadsheet program.
1-2-3 dominated the DOS market. 1-2-3 never ran out of steam, it was
just ported to Windows too little, too late as the people at Lotus
were extremely skeptical of Windows' possibilities of success. They
never really caught up and lost their market share. Excel was mostly
an innocent bystander in this, other than being about the only
good alternative to 1-2-3.
Excel was written from the ground up for Windows (and was "the" Windows
program for a long time), and always has been a jump ahead of 1-2-3.
Excel pioneered putting Improv-style pivot tables in a conventional
spreadsheet while Lotus just threw their Improv product away.
Thus Excel basically cornered the market through default.
Scott
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
: " products. Who actually likes M$ software? [....]
: Nearly everyone who has used it. Excel is better than Lotus 123. Word is
: better than WordPerfect (which even diehard WP users are finally
: realizing), Access is better (certainly faster) than any other comparably
: priced DBMS.
That's a good point -- Microsoft has won the business app market
largely by default. The opportunity to move from DOS to Windows was
squandered by the other leading application vendors.
Lotus has basically taken itself out of contention after the years of
languishing as Manzi tried to make his fortune selling the company and
taking the stock windfall. Lotus killed off many products during that
time such as Ami Pro and Improv, and their other products languished --
1-2-3 was largely ignored for years as Excel was improved. They were
anything but competitive. If Lotus had improved and enchanced its products
at the same rate MS has in the 90s, they'd have 50% or more of the
application market share.
WordPerfect and the databases like dBASE lost I think because of no
direction. Corporate America bought apps from MS because they knew MS
would survive in 5 years. WordPerfect made a shaky transition to
Windows and then spent years going from company to company with a lot
of false starts. Who wants to make the company standard something that
could go away next year? The same is true for databases -- Access has
cornered the low-end market, and client/server databases like Oracle
have the midrange and network markets. Personal databases like dBASE
and Paradox don't hardly exist any longer -- there's not much market
for them. If dBASE had been ported to Windows much sooner, it might
have challenged Access.
Lotus was solid but going nowhere fast and getting leapfrogged by the
competition, the other programs were being drug from company to
company, and MS was left.
I think the evil conspiracy theories of MS dominating the software
world are laughable. If anyone could get their act together the way
Microsoft has, they'd be neck and neck.
Scott
John Millington
: Don't tell that to people in Japan who bought into MSX. The hardware was
: manufactured by a number of companies including Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic
: and others. The operating system was developed by Microsoft. It was
: intended as a home computer/game system. Go to Japan now and try to find
: one.
But that's the whole point. No one wants it, but they buy into it anyway.
Does anyone really want to run Windoze on their PC? No, but they have a
few Windoze licenses anyway. MS is clever. They might not really be a
legitimate computer company, but they can show you the sales figures to at
least make you think twice. That's "doing things right" from certain kinds
of peoples' points of view.
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
John Millington
Bruce Horn
> Thanks! And you're right, I am confusing the Star and Alto.
The Star didn't have a trash can either.
Bruce
Bruce Ediger
soft...@mercury.interpath.com (Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems) wrote:
>party products. Has there ever been a third party networking protocol
>for Apple or UNIX computers?
You used to be able to by "DECnet" stuff for certain Unix versions,
mostly Ultrix and SunOS. You used to be able to buy Ethertalk Phase 2
thingies for various Unixes, too. I think you can still buy LAT protocol
pieces for the usual suspects, and you can buy various SNA (IBM mainframe)
protocols.
>1-2-3 dominated the DOS market. 1-2-3 never ran out of steam, it was
>just ported to Windows too little, too late as the people at Lotus
>were extremely skeptical of Windows' possibilities of success. They
Oh, gee. What about the whole "Develop for OS/2 - It's the Future"
push that was going on while M$ was doing Windows 3.0? I expect
that believing M$ propaganda had a lot to do with Lotus' skepticism.
Greg T. LaLiberte
Priase God for Dr Kervorkian our only prophet and solution.
Greg Thomas La-Liberte'
810 229 - 1721 / E-Mail gr...@pub1.tln.lib.mi.us
http://pub1.tln.lib.mi.us/~greg/shadow.htm
The SHADOW NEWS-letter-zine
981 OakRidge Circle
Brighton(rock), MI 48116
Michael Burr
In article <57t9fe$m...@crl8.crl.com>, David A. Kaye <d...@crl.com> wrote:
>Michael Burr wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" Kill the "golden goose"?? Get a clue. Last I checked Microsoft was
>" incorporated. Gates personal fortune has little to do with the fate
>" of Microsoft these days.
>
>I know something about the stock market, having been a trader in it. If
>Bill Gates sells his shares, Microsoft's value will plummet; it may drop
>to 1/10th its value. Why? Microsoft made the mistake of building itself
>around a cult figure, Bill Gates. If he decides to sell his shares, the
>average investor will think he has some inside knowledge about some
>problem or other, and the average investor will panic. Soon, few people
>will want MS shares.
I don't know why you stretch so hard to defend Mr. Gates, but this is
ridiculous. Selective insider selling by Gates will not harm MS. Even
Bill must believe that as he sold 1,000,000 shares this week.
>For a man of his financial stature, yes. For a man of his age, no. How
>many other 40-year olds do you know who make substantial charitable
>contributions today? Give him a little time, then we'll see.
Well I guess the point went over your head - I was discussing charitable
contributions AS A PERCENTAGE OF NETWORTH. I would wager that there are
MILLIONS of individuals under 40 who give more as a percentage of
networth EVERY YEAR through payroll contributions to United Way.
A person earning 45K with a 50K net worth who gives $5/week to United
Way is giving 0.52% of their networth per year. Compare that to Mr.
Gates' 0.33% IN TEN YEARS. Your argument doesn't hold up.
>" Ted Turner who is upset with the charitable records being established by
>" his fellow billionaires recently railed against them.
>
>At least Bill Gates hasn't sat down at a formal dinner with a reporter for
>the Washington Post, looked down her dress and said, "Nice breasts." Of
>course, this was also a maneuvering tool designed to disarm his
How does this improve the case of Mr. Gates' charity?
>adversaries into thinking he was just a bumpkin. Not so. Turner is as
>shrewd as Gates. However, did Ted Turner, who was already rich at age 40
>from his dad's billboard firm, begin giving big charity donations at that
>age? Not that I'm aware of.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that charity begins later
in life... where on earth did you get this idea?
Just to humor you, let's say it's fine for Mr. Gates to wait till he's
60 to make the BIG donations.... so what's stopping him from at least
giving at the same level millions of workers do every year - say 0.5%
of his networth every year. It would actually be far easier for him
to give at this level than the average person... because he has the
luxury of absolutly knowing he won't need the money to have a
comfortable life.
>Microsoft could go down the drain just like so many other computer
>companies, and while fighting to stay afloat they could exhaust their
>money, and Bill's wealth along with it. It's happened to lesser
All the more reason he should contribute now while he has the ability
too wouldn't you say?
------------
Michael Burr: mb...@halcyon.com
Renaissance Man wannabe ---- Have you hugged your planet today?
Loren Petrich
In article <57stdg$n...@crl9.crl.com>, David A. Kaye <d...@crl.com> wrote:
>Someone wrote the quoted material below:
>" their business tactics interfere too much with the quality of their
>" software. They're not the only ones who do this, but creating
>" standards in order to secure marketshare instead of creating better
>" standards has a terrible effect on software in the long run.
>Yet, people didn't complain when Netscape did this with the Mozilla
>extensions to HTML 2.0, except those of us who had to write compatible
>HTML. ...
I *have* seen Netscape criticized for creating new HTML tags, such
as the infamous <blink>, but at least NS has the decency not to keep
others from implementing them.
>
>" Sure, but he doesn't care about the users benefit or creating better
>" products. Who actually likes M$ software? [....]
>Nearly everyone who has used it. ...
I'm a SERIOUS exception. Windoze 3.x is absolute *CRAP*. I can't
*stand* its root windows that have to be resized when one wants to resize
an app window. And its "File Manager" ... suffice it to say that I often
prefer managing files in DOS. Never mind the stupidity of a separate
Program Manager. Give me the MacOS, or even Unix. The BeOS looks VERY
promising, but what runs on it?
And I think that Metrowerks CodeWarrior is GREAT. Now if only the
MacOS was as bulletproof as Big Iron OSes like IBM VM and VAX/VMS...
>I'm simply trying to tell the truth as I see it. I've already stated what
>I like and dislike about Microsoft and Bill Gates. I'm not interested in
>cult worship either for or against him or MS. I just want the facts and
>let the chips fall as they will.
And if M$ turns out a disgrace, then it's best to accept it.
>Bill Gates has made it clear where they will go: they want to sell as much
>as possible to the mass market. So, instead of seeing $75,000 programs
>designed for architects (yes they exist), you see $250 programs designed
>for general office use. MS will not touch the specialized markets, except
>for developers, because developer tools feed directly into their platform.
So what? One can get mass-market stuff from other companies.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Bruce Ediger
mb...@coho.halcyon.com (Michael Burr) wrote:
>ridiculous. Selective insider selling by Gates will not harm MS. Even
>Bill must believe that as he sold 1,000,000 shares this week.
It's not "insider trading" if you do it by SEC rules. I'm 100% positive
that those 1,000,000 shares were sold under SEC rules for selling of stocks
by folks who run the company that the stocks relate to. These rules include
disclosure of the sale well before the date of sale, and a bunch of other
criteria that allow other traders to know that the sale is not some panic-
stricken sell-off by an insider.
The rules help everybody honest who's involved to get a fair, albeit not
maximal, value out of the stock.
Richard Turner
> Feh. It was a port, pure and simple. Who seriously believes Gates
>invented Basic? John Kemeny at Dartmouth developed it ('Hackers', p. 170),
>and that was in the early-mid _sixties_.
Erm... No-one suggested that Gates ***INVENTED*** BASIC. He and Allan
just implemented it on an 8088 emulator that Allan had developed and
blasted the interpreter onto a prototype Altair '(Hard Drive').
------- Richard Turner : ri...@paradigm.uk.com ------
-- Paradigm Industries Ltd. : www.paradigm.uk.com --
Ryan Messner
Synopsis: Microsoft is evil. Bill Gates is the Antichrist. You will
soon wear his mark 666 on your palm or forehead, and no buying or
selling can take place without it. You allowed it. You live with it.
;)
Chris Mansfield
>>Well I guess the point went over your head - I was discussing charitable
>>contributions AS A PERCENTAGE OF NETWORTH. I would wager that there are
>>MILLIONS of individuals under 40 who give more as a percentage of
>>networth EVERY YEAR through payroll contributions to United Way.
>
>A person earning 45K with a 50K net worth who gives $5/week to United
>Way is giving 0.52% of their networth per year. Compare that to Mr.
>Gates' 0.33% IN TEN YEARS. Your argument doesn't hold up.
and your argument is flawed. the world operates on a financial scale much
larger than that of those who earn 45-50K per year. 0.33% of bill gates net
worth over the last ten years goes a *hell* of a lot farther than 0.52% of 50K
over ten years.
why should bill gates give a comparable percentage to charities when the
percentage he does donate already dwarfs that of others?
of course this is an argument that can be and has been extended to income tax
rates, but you get my point.
Richard Turner
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
David A. Kaye
Bruce Ediger wrote the quoted material below:
" What an incredibly *small* vision of people, their potential and what they
" might or might not want to do. Are there no alternatives in your mind
" to cut-throat competition and charging whatever the market will bear for
" the next quarter?
This is America. This business model is The American Way. When people
talk about free markets and opening up trade and doing all sorts of stuff,
they're talking about allowing the Microsofts of the world to dominate.
This, of course, is a far cry from what the libertarians have in mind, but
in the real world someone captures a market, gets bigger, and begins
swallowing the competition. In the free market there is little room for
the small companies to stay small. If they stay small they lose. It just
so happens that Microsoft has dominated not only because they use this
business model, but also because their stuff is (eventually, by release
3.0) GOOD.
--
Copyright 1996 Albert Einstein was offered the
David Kaye presidency of Israel in 1952.
Gary Flowers
Ryan Messner wrote:
>
> Synopsis: Microsoft is evil. Bill Gates is the Antichrist. You will
> soon wear his mark 666 on your palm or forehead, and no buying or
> selling can take place without it. You allowed it. You live with it.
> ;)
Bill isn't alone. Check what Micron Communiations Inc. is up to at
http://www.micron.com/
Richard Turner
> I *have* seen Netscape criticized for creating new HTML tags, such
>as the infamous <blink>, but at least NS has the decency not to keep
>others from implementing them.
Actually, MS provides a mechanism on it's servers that positively
encourage extensions to be added to web pages.
> I'm a SERIOUS exception. Windoze 3.x is absolute *CRAP*. I can't
>*stand* its root windows that have to be resized when one wants to resize
>an app window. And its "File Manager" ... suffice it to say that I often
>prefer managing files in DOS. Never mind the stupidity of a separate
>Program Manager. Give me the MacOS, or even Unix. The BeOS looks VERY
>promising, but what runs on it?
Yeah sure, for a computer whizz, Windows 3.x is not good at all. But
try training an office full of secretaries how to use applications
under DOS and then under Windows. The difference in attitude alone is
staggering.
"Sure, but why not train them on Macs instead", I hear you cry,
foaming at the mouth, eyes crossing.
While the Max is undeniably better technology than Win3.x, Corporates
don't want to spend money on technologies that are unlikely to be
around in 5 years. That's the crux of this whole issue.
This is why Apple, Borland etc. are not widely accepted, despite
providing better technologies and solutions - they keep on dropping
the ball. Shame.
>
> And I think that Metrowerks CodeWarrior is GREAT. Now if only the
>MacOS was as bulletproof as Big Iron OSes like IBM VM and VAX/VMS...
You should try NT 4 - it was architected by the guy that designed VMS
anyway!!
Neil Price
>David A. Kaye (d...@crl.com) wrote:
>: Another example is Novel Network. Nobody much talks about Novell anymore,
>: though it was all the rage as recently as a year ago. Why? It's a bitch.
>: It takes ages to learn, and Novell has a whole list of classes to
>: "certify" people in it. Compare with WindowsNT which is virtually
>: plug-and-play, with wizards guiding you through the setup. In short,
>: Microsoft built a better network server.
>This is inaccurate -- Novell, LANtastic, and other networks are falling
>by the wayside because everyone is standardizing on TCP/IP. NT has TCP/IP
>built into it, as does Win95 -- as long as networking is built into the
I disagree with both premises. Easy setup doth not a server make. My
experience is that Netware is at least five years ahead of NT server
in technology. Netware has 60% of the market. NT makes a decent client
OS but as a server it sucks. Particularly in a WAN.
Anyway I installed Netware 4.11 this morning - took 15 minutes,
autodetecting all hardware correctly.
If Netware is on the way out (which I don't believe) it will be
because they took lessons from IBM on how to market good products
badly.
Oh yes, I've been running TCP/IP across my Novell WAN for the last
three years.
*The point of know return, CT, RSA.*
Al Denis
In article <58550o$p...@teal.csn.net>,
on 4 Dec 1996 17:29:12 -0700,
Who said "insider trading"? The post I saw said "insider selling", a
completely different animal.(Insider trading is trading on material information
prior to public disclosure.Insider selling is simply someone "inside" the
company selling shares.)
Al
Michael Burr
In article <585j0n$j...@texas.nwlink.com>,
Chris Mansfield <mans...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>A person earning 45K with a 50K net worth who gives $5/week to United
>>Way is giving 0.52% of their networth per year. Compare that to Mr.
>>Gates' 0.33% IN TEN YEARS. Your argument doesn't hold up.
>
>percentage he does donate already dwarfs that of others?
Because he has the ability to make the world a better place without any
tangible impact to his own lifestyle? Charity for most folks is a
trade-off. You decide how much you are willing to sacrifice in order to
help others. For most folks this sacrifice exists because they could
use the resources they are giving up to live better themselves.
But at some point the connection between individual sacrifice and
charity disappears. Quality of life is not directly proportional to
networth out to infinity. At some point all your materialistic needs
are met for the rest of your life. At that point, what good does the
extra networth do? Is it logical or moral to have it do nothing when so
much needs to be done in the world?
That is why Bill Gates and his fellow mega-million/billionairs should
be more charitable than the others that they dwarf.
Michael Burr
In article <585j0n$j...@texas.nwlink.com>,
Chris Mansfield <mans...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>A person earning 45K with a 50K net worth who gives $5/week to United
>>Way is giving 0.52% of their networth per year. Compare that to Mr.
>>Gates' 0.33% IN TEN YEARS. Your argument doesn't hold up.
>
>larger than that of those who earn 45-50K per year.
I have to disagree with this. Remember, even Bill Gates' massive
networth ultimatly came from "those who earn 45-50k per year" - along
with every other billionaire in the country.
Dave Van den Eynde
i bet Bill never said he INVENTED basic. I think he just fell in love with
it so that he still incorporates it in today's applications.
It is a fairly easy language to understand, but then again it's practically
useless.
Mendel Leo Cooper
Chris Mansfield wrote:
> and your argument is flawed. the world operates on a financial scale much
> larger than that of those who earn 45-50K per year. 0.33% of bill gates net
> worth over the last ten years goes a *hell* of a lot farther than 0.52% of 50K
> over ten years.
>
> why should bill gates give a comparable percentage to charities when the
> percentage he does donate already dwarfs that of others?
I noticed on the official M$ page that they are funding college
scholarships for women and minorities. A good thing, I thought, maybe
Bill has finally decided to do something to improve the world, to give
back a little... Then I noticed that it was a sum total of 5
scholarships per year, at $1000 apiece. Talk about chump change. Hey,
Bill, I hope you don't go broke doing this (maybe you can raise the
price of Wimp95 by a quarter to fund this).
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Truman.
===============================================
+ http://personal.riverusers.com/~thegrendel/ +
===============================================
Koro
Well, Microsoft would be sued for fraud in a Libertarian society...
Very simple.
KORO
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
Greg T. LaLiberte (gr...@pub1.tln.lib.mi.us) wrote:
: Priase God for Dr Kervorkian our only prophet and solution.
Especially since he switched from killing off people to
smashing any PC older than a 386.
Scott
David A. Kaye
Dave Van den Eynde wrote the quoted material below:
" i bet Bill never said he INVENTED basic. I think he just fell in love with
" it so that he still incorporates it in today's applications.
He's never claimed that, but he did write a simple BASIC which fit into
4k, which in itself was quite an accomplishment for its time. In order to
save on memory, the interpreter said "OK" instead of BASIC's more familiar
"Ready".
" It is a fairly easy language to understand, but then again it's practically
" useless.
You would be surprised, perhaps amazed how many programs were written in
versions of BASIC over the years -- good commercial products. Of course,
the giveaway for Visual BASIC is vbrun?00.dll, but for QuickBASIC there
are telltale signs which come out when you read the compiled code as a
text file. It's been used a lot for database front-ends, prototyping,
all sorts of uses.
Today I develop in it fulltime. Your life may actually depend on software
one of our programmers has written in VB. Imagine that.
--
Copyright 1996 "America is the only country of the world stupid
David Kaye enough to live on 85% credit." -- Dick Gregory
Daryl dmc
d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>Bruce Ediger wrote the quoted material below:
>" What an incredibly *small* vision of people, their potential and what they
>" might or might not want to do. Are there no alternatives in your mind
>" to cut-throat competition and charging whatever the market will bear for
>" the next quarter?
>This is America. This business model is The American Way. When people
>talk about free markets and opening up trade and doing all sorts of stuff,
>they're talking about allowing the Microsofts of the world to dominate.
>This, of course, is a far cry from what the libertarians have in mind, but
>in the real world someone captures a market, gets bigger, and begins
>swallowing the competition. In the free market there is little room for
>the small companies to stay small. If they stay small they lose. It just
>so happens that Microsoft has dominated not only because they use this
>business model, but also because their stuff is (eventually, by release
>3.0) GOOD.
There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses that have stayed
small and will continue to stay small and be quite successful.
There are markets, of course, that being small would effectively elimate
you. Most of these are markets that involved extensive R&D. In general,
however, being small has its definite advantages, and we will *always*
have small businesses in large quantities.
dmc
*--
Remove the leading underscore from the reply_to address
if you wish to send me email. If that's too hard for you,
don't send me email.
Commercial email will be accepted at $5 per byte. By sending
me email you agree to these terms.
Pieter Dubois
David A. Kaye wrote:
>
> Bruce Ediger wrote the quoted material below:
> " What an incredibly *small* vision of people, their potential and
what they
> " might or might not want to do. Are there no alternatives in your
mind
> " to cut-throat competition and charging whatever the market will
bear for
> " the next quarter?
>
> This is America.
Eh, not here.
> This business model is The American Way. When people
> talk about free markets and opening up trade and doing all sorts of
stuff,
> they're talking about allowing the Microsofts of the world to
dominate.
Personally -and not going further in to this since off-topic- last
week I was in your
America, and while I certainly don't want to say that my country
(Belgium) is without
its share of problems (yes even we got world news lately,
unfortunately only on a way
news seem to come : bad), America (USA) has a lot of structural
problems IMO that will
cause serious troubles in the year to come (LA-riots anyone?). I'm
talking about the
loss of middle-class, a whole generation lost because of no-bad
education, less and less
people that pay more and more taxes (poor and rich almost pay no
taxes, poor because they
can't, rich because they have the best bookkeepers -> bill gates
claims 500K$ income, but
everybody calls him the richest man of the world mmmh), bad basic
education, high crime rates,
structural illegal immigration problems, etc. etc.
> This, of course, is a far cry from what the libertarians have in
mind, but
> in the real world someone captures a market, gets bigger, and
begins
> swallowing the competition.
That's why regulations are IMO necessary, since in the end the most
important question is :
how does society benefits from this. not, how gets a small amount of
people as rich as
possible.
> In the free market there is little room for
> the small companies to stay small. If they stay small they lose.
It just
> so happens that Microsoft has dominated not only because they use
this
> business model, but also because their stuff is (eventually, by
release
> 3.0) GOOD.
Now, now, let us not exaggerate ;-)
>
> --
> Copyright 1996 Albert Einstein was
offered the
> David Kaye presidency of Israel
in 1952.
But why did he refuse?
Besides he's dead now.
--
Pieter Dubois
___________________________________
Disclaimer ... which Disclaimer?
Didn't you read my name?
Mercury Park Dimples
In article <329F2E...@nwlink.com>, rosa...@nwlink.com says...
>
>I'm not now and never have been on medication of any kind. You have to
>have a verifiable mental illness.
Have you ever seen someone to verify yours?
>Do you know what is happening to
>ex-Microsoft employees when they leave and attempt to start their own
>business? Well, I do.
And that would be... what?
>http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan
RodVan, great. Another bitter kook who himself was harrassing
a female MS employee. He was finally fired after many warnings
when he wouldn't stop contacting her. That RodVan, right? The
one with the anti-womens-rights MENS MOVEMENT magazine?
>Here is another ex-employee's sight. It's really sick to live around
>here and have to deal with the hate and harassment by a small group of
>people in Microsoft and around Gates.
It *is* sick. I'm not MS, but I've read enough seattle.general
to hear your shit for years and frankly, it all boils down
to this: You Need To Let It Go -- you could have earned
hundreds of thousands of dollars as an employee if you would
have sought to put it behind you and seek gainfull employment.
And don't hand us that handicap crap. I've read your complaints
of employment agencies somehow being under the evil power of Bill
Gates. If you can't work, what the hell were you doing at an
employment agency. I wish I had your post, but I remember it
well--you described the little altercation you were having with
the agent on your case and all I could think of was "that's no
way to get a job". Once again, you did yourself in.
Have you considered vocational therapy? They'll find occupations
that you're physically and mentally capable of holding down.
Somehow, I don't think you'll seek that out--this would remove
you from your Hate Jihad. This has been your life and goal, and
you can't let it go. Ironically, you can never win.
You're living an empty existence.
It sure is easy to blame Bill for your mistakes, your hateful
grudge, alienating and losing your husband, your kids. It *is*
sick.
Merc
Mercury Park Dimples
In article <5836g3$k...@news1.halcyon.com>, mb...@coho.halcyon.com says...
>>I know something about the stock market, having been a trader in it. If
>>Bill Gates sells his shares, Microsoft's value will plummet;
>
>Bill must believe that as he sold 1,000,000 shares this week.
Gates selling a million shares every so often (someone has to pay
for that house) will not break MS, this is true -- I'm not sure
why you consider this insider trading. In fact, it's a dangerous
allegation. I don't doubt that he followed strict SEC guidelines.
I-mean-come-ON-now, they'll be watching this one.
Mercury Park Dimples
In article <57sltp$1...@news1.halcyon.com>, mb...@coho.halcyon.com says...
>
>IN THE LAST 10 YEARS BILL HAS GIVEN AWAY 0.33% OF HIS WEALTH!
>(According to the Worth magazine figures).
Oh what an utterly worthless statement! 10 years ago, his
weath was but a fraction of what it was today. The growth
has been a continued high beyond that which anyone could
have guessed, so how could he possibly have started a giving
campaign 10 years ago that would be commenserate to his
weath today?!?
Mercury Park Dimples
jinx...@sover.net says...
>> Someone wrote the quoted material below:
>> [....] Remenmber, it was Bill Gates and Paul
>> Allen who stopped people from passing around the original MS BASIC code
>> at user group meetings. And why not? They worked hard on it.
> Feh. It was a port, pure and simple. Who seriously believes Gates
>invented Basic?
Who claims he invented BASIC? Not the poster you quote--that quote
clearly states they were controlling MS BASIC code. They *did* work
hard on that code. The also worked hard on MS-DOS. Nobody thinks
they invented either one.
Mike Jones
Mercury Park Dimples wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan
>
> RodVan, great. Another bitter kook who himself was harrassing
> a female MS employee. He was finally fired after many warnings
> when he wouldn't stop contacting her. That RodVan, right? The
> one with the anti-womens-rights MENS MOVEMENT magazine?
>
> >Here is another ex-employee's sight. It's really sick to live around
> >here and have to deal with the hate and harassment by a small group of
> >people in Microsoft and around Gates.
>
> It sure is easy to blame Bill for your mistakes, your hateful
> grudge, alienating and losing your husband, your kids. It *is*
> sick.
>
> Merc
What is the problem with these 'dips' that have no sense of humor and
would just love for everyone else to be as miserable as they are? That
Rod-whacko is something else. Typical little troll if you ask me.
Sounded to me like he was a real 'team player'.
MS lost out bigtime when they lost him. Right!!!!!!NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why can't losers just get lost?
MIke.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
David A. Kaye
Chris Johnson wrote the quoted material below:
" No, this breaks down with Gates. Everything I've ever read about him
" indicates that his needs are _not_ met, that they never _will_ be met. The
" man will not be satisfied. He cannot be satisfied.
Long ago he said he wasn't in it for the money; he plays Microsoft in the
same way he plays poker: he wants to win. Period. Understand his
motivation and you understand where Microsoft is going. He has stated a
goal, and he restates it from time to time: he wants to put a computer
anyone can use on everyone's desk. It sounds like a simple goal, but
it's actually complex, and still hasn't been accomplished yet.
Computer geeks figure that it has been accomplished, but they are around
computers so much they don't understand that the *average* person still
can't use the average computer to its capacity without knowing about the
inner workings of the computer. This is like having to know the model
number of your picture tube before you can watch TV.
" How does this affect his charitable giving? I suspect that every penny
" he gives is consciously diverted from other things, things that are more
" effective in terms of control and achieving his goals.
Microsoft was the largest corporate charity donor in America last year,
but it was mostly in the form of Microsoft software valued at full retail,
meaning both that their contribution was significantly less than reported
and that it was totally selfish motivation. Obviously, any charity using
Microsoft's Office Suite is going to have to go out and buy a Microsoft
operating system.
--
Copyright 1996 The Egyptians once trained
David Kaye baboons to wait on tables.
Jason S.
> Bruce Ediger wrote the quoted material below:
> " What an incredibly *small* vision of people, their potential and what they
> " might or might not want to do. Are there no alternatives in your mind
> " to cut-throat competition and charging whatever the market will bear for
> " the next quarter?
>
> This is America. This business model is The American Way. When people
> talk about free markets and opening up trade and doing all sorts of stuff,
> they're talking about allowing the Microsofts of the world to dominate.
> This, of course, is a far cry from what the libertarians have in mind, but
> in the real world someone captures a market, gets bigger, and begins
> swallowing the competition. In the free market there is little room for
> the small companies to stay small. If they stay small they lose. It just
> so happens that Microsoft has dominated not only because they use this
> business model, but also because their stuff is (eventually, by release
> 3.0) GOOD.
No no no. You should probably study up on the antitrust laws before you
make such statements. Antitrust law prohibits, inter alia, predatory
pricing, tying arrangements, and certain types of vertical integration.
Microsoft _may_ have violated all of these prohibitions over the past few
years. The "free enterprise system" does not encourage restraints on
competition.
J.
Jason S.
In article <32a6a4f6...@news.reith.bbc.co.uk>, ri...@paradigm.uk.com
(Richard Turner) wrote:
> > Yeah sure, for a computer whizz, Windows 3.x is not good at all. But
> try training an office full of secretaries how to use applications
> under DOS and then under Windows. The difference in attitude alone is
> staggering.
>
Really. I've never met a secretary who _does'nt_ prefer DOS to Windows (and
I've met a lot of secretaries). Since most secretaries were trained
(during the '80's) on DOS, it is what they prefer to use. Thus, according
to them, WP DOS rulez.
Of course, give them a month on a Mac and I think they'd change their
minds. Just my opinion, though. And you can't run Mac OS on an x86... :(
J.