Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

dual-channel DDR, Nvidia chipset for Athlon 4 laptops

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Yousuf Khan

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:16:04 AM5/29/01
to
http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG20010528S0009

Quote:
"Likely to get the lion's share of attention is Nvidia's new Athlon 4
chipset. As previously reported, Nvidia has developed a core-logic IC for
the Athlon 4 that is similar to the chipset it will supply for Microsoft
Corp.'s X-Box game console. Like the X-Box chipset, the device embeds north
bridge core-logic functions with Nvidia's newest graphics processor and uses
the chip's 128-bit graphics bus line as a processor bus. A separate I/O
south bridge chip, also used in the X-Box, is part of the Athlon 4 chipset."

This chipset is of the highly integrated variety, combining system and video
chipset functions together. Although these sort of chipsets have been around
for ages now, on extremely low-end, cheapo systems, this is the first time
this concept is being done for performance reasons. I can also see good
reason for doing this on a laptop PC rather than a desktop: nobody tries to
upgrade a laptop! With a laptop you usually keep the things that came with
the laptop originally and live with it.

Yousuf Khan


Anthony Hill

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:42:07 PM5/29/01
to
On Tue, 29 May 2001 12:16:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote:
>This chipset is of the highly integrated variety, combining system and video
>chipset functions together. Although these sort of chipsets have been around
>for ages now, on extremely low-end, cheapo systems, this is the first time
>this concept is being done for performance reasons. I can also see good
>reason for doing this on a laptop PC rather than a desktop: nobody tries to
>upgrade a laptop! With a laptop you usually keep the things that came with
>the laptop originally and live with it.

Well, I wouldn't get my hopes up TOO high for top-end performance from
this system. From what I can tell it looks like the "dual-channel DDR
bus" is going to really be more like a single DDR SDRAM channel for
system memory and another single DDR SDRAM channel for video memory.
Now, this should lead to VERY good performance for the integrated
video as compared to anything else out there (roughly comparable to a
GeForce 2MX), and it should do so without impacting overall system
performance, but it isn't likely to lead to higher system performance
as compared to current systems without integrated graphics.

In short, the chipset should offer performance roughly on-par with a
current DDR chipset motherboard with an add-in GeForce 2MX card but at
a lower price point since video will be integrated.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Yousuf Khan

unread,
May 29, 2001, 9:01:13 PM5/29/01
to
"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:3bc8ht0u9pc85jquc...@4ax.com...

> Well, I wouldn't get my hopes up TOO high for top-end performance from
> this system. From what I can tell it looks like the "dual-channel DDR
> bus" is going to really be more like a single DDR SDRAM channel for
> system memory and another single DDR SDRAM channel for video memory.
> Now, this should lead to VERY good performance for the integrated
> video as compared to anything else out there (roughly comparable to a
> GeForce 2MX), and it should do so without impacting overall system
> performance, but it isn't likely to lead to higher system performance
> as compared to current systems without integrated graphics.

My interpretation was that each of the dual channels were not dedicated to
one function or the other, but just there for either function as it needs
it. Of course the Athlon itself wouldn't be able to make use of the full
dual-channels for its own purposes, but the video chipset could. As I see
it, it's a video chipset with a built-in system chipset as an extra.

Yousuf Khan


Paul Tiseo

unread,
May 30, 2001, 11:07:04 AM5/30/01
to
In article <tDXQ6.91840$eK2.20...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>,
yk...@nospam.home.com.spam says...
> My interpretation was that each of the dual channels were not dedicated to
> one function or the other, but just there for either function as it needs
> it. Of course the Athlon itself wouldn't be able to make use of the full
> dual-channels for its own purposes, but the video chipset could. As I see
> it, it's a video chipset with a built-in system chipset as an extra.

That's a key question I haven't seen addressed well anywhere: can
one take the Crush and dedicate two channels to DDR for CPU use and
sacrifice the onboard video? What seems likely is that mobo makers
probably won't bother doing this for cost reasons unless it gives them a
good marketing/technological advantage in performance.

If one can, I'm assuming that one could benefit from it, although
the benefits would be smallish. The benefit won't be in bandwidth, which
I think would be limited by the CPU interface, but it might help lower
latency in memory accesses that go to alternate channels, much like two
channels of RDRAM help it's latency at times. Wouldn't it?
--

(Any opinions expressed are stricly mine only and not my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Intermediate Systems Programmer
Birdsall 3, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville
4500 San Pablo Rd, FL, 32224
tiseo...@mayo.edu -- (904) 953-8254

Darren Bremner

unread,
May 30, 2001, 11:21:28 AM5/30/01
to
The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has
priority
over the video when if comes to memory access, so there may not be much
difference. I'm glad they did it that way, with the PS2 the DMA used to
feed
the VIF and GIF (infaces to vector units and graphics processor) have
priority
over the CPU, so the CPU can wait for quite some time to get it's go.

"Paul Tiseo" <tiseo...@mayo.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.157ed6a2f...@mayonews.mayo.edu...

Message has been deleted

Kurt Saylor

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 7:31:26 AM6/2/01
to
...and maybe the demo isn't bug-free either...
"scamp" <sco...@simsusa.com> wrote in message
news:5d82d3be.01060...@posting.google.com...
> "Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:<9f46v0$2ch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...

> > The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has
> I read several reports of the xbox demo games crashing at e3 on the xbox.
> not to try to start a flame war or burst any bubbles but its hard to
immagine
> nvidia is going to get a chipset right on their first or even second try
at it.
> I would guess the video performance will far exceed your 810/15 and
whatever the
> hell via's integrated chipset is called but i'm guessing that the
stability is
> going to be nonexistant at best on this chipset.


Jari Korhonen

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 11:43:54 AM6/2/01
to
Hmm... MSI MS-6367 http://www.msi.com.tw/newsrelease/2001/0601_6367.htm
Quate "The most mentionable feature is when using 2 DDR, with 128-bit TwinBank
Architecture; the bandwidth accommodates 4.2GB/s, which is twice faster than
regular DDR platform" end quate.
But will Crush be nForce or something else
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/19376.html

>Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:3bc8ht0u9pc85jquc...@4ax.com...


--
Jari Korhonen
pa...@mbnet.fi
http://koti.mbnet.fi/parru/ (canceled web-page project and Latency 0 program for
VIA MVP3 chipset.)


Harry McGregor

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 4:27:01 PM6/2/01
to
On 1 Jun 2001, scamp wrote:

> "Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message news:<9f46v0$2ch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...

> > The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has

> I read several reports of the xbox demo games crashing at e3 on the xbox.
> not to try to start a flame war or burst any bubbles but its hard to immagine
> nvidia is going to get a chipset right on their first or even second try at it.
> I would guess the video performance will far exceed your 810/15 and whatever the
> hell via's integrated chipset is called but i'm guessing that the stability is
> going to be nonexistant at best on this chipset.

I guess you missed the part about the demo at E3 not being the final
hardware, but the development platform, ie i820+rdram plus AGP nvidia
graphics.

Harry

--
Harry McGregor, CEO, Co-Founder
Hmcg...@osef.org, (520) 661-7875 (CELL)
Open Source Education Foundation, http://www.osef.org

Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 4:38:22 PM6/2/01
to
On 1 Jun 2001 23:40:30 -0700, sco...@simsusa.com (scamp) wrote:
>"Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message news:<9f46v0$2ch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>> The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has
>I read several reports of the xbox demo games crashing at e3 on the xbox.

As best as I could find out, the Xbox demo was not run using an nVidia
core logic chipset, but rather an Intel one with an nVidia GeForce2
video chipset bolted on the AGP bus. I could be wrong, this is just
the story I've heard about it.

In any case, I think that we could be 99% certain that the XBox crash
was caused by software. After all, the XBox essentially runs on a
beta version of a brand new Microsoft operating systems, and lets face
it, Microsoft hasn't exactly impressed too many people with the
stability of their operating systems.

>not to try to start a flame war or burst any bubbles but its hard to immagine
>nvidia is going to get a chipset right on their first or even second try at it.
>I would guess the video performance will far exceed your 810/15 and whatever the
>hell via's integrated chipset is called but i'm guessing that the stability is
>going to be nonexistant at best on this chipset.

I don't know about that. I'm sure that the initial chipset will have
it's share of growing pains and whatnot, but nVidia seems to have
taken this at least partially into account with their rather long
development cycle. It looks like they've put a fair bit of effort
into getting this thing right. As always though, time will tell.
Personally, I certainly won't be running out to buy one the day that
the chipset is released, and I definitely wouldn't put a board based
on this chipset in a server any time soon, but I also don't think that
stability is going to be a huge problem by about two months after it's
release.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 2:40:05 PM6/3/01
to
"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:iqeiht4b9mlr8cst7...@4ax.com...

> On 1 Jun 2001 23:40:30 -0700, sco...@simsusa.com (scamp) wrote:
> >"Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:<9f46v0$2ch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
> >> The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has
> >I read several reports of the xbox demo games crashing at e3 on the xbox.
>
> As best as I could find out, the Xbox demo was not run using an nVidia
> core logic chipset, but rather an Intel one with an nVidia GeForce2
> video chipset bolted on the AGP bus. I could be wrong, this is just
> the story I've heard about it.

So basically the Xbox demo was a PC in Xbox clothing? I'm almost certain
that people are going to be asking a few questions when the real Xbox comes
out: if you can build an Xbox complete with video, hard disk, dvd player,
memory and operating system for around $300, why can't you do the same with
a PC which is the same thing?

> In any case, I think that we could be 99% certain that the XBox crash
> was caused by software. After all, the XBox essentially runs on a
> beta version of a brand new Microsoft operating systems, and lets face
> it, Microsoft hasn't exactly impressed too many people with the
> stability of their operating systems.

It's time to break that Microsoft monopoly up, as the DOJ has mandated. I
think we'll see some stability and programming excellence then.

Yousuf Khan


Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 3:31:50 PM6/3/01
to
I have read that the final version of XBox will use an iteration of the
GeForce 3...nVidia's newest chipset. The talk goes that this will allow
easy porting of XBox games to PC (for those with the bucks to afford a
GeForce 3).

"Harry McGregor" <mic...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.0106021326150.13048-100000@andromeda...

Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 6:44:42 PM6/3/01
to
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:40:05 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote:
>"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
>news:iqeiht4b9mlr8cst7...@4ax.com...
>> On 1 Jun 2001 23:40:30 -0700, sco...@simsusa.com (scamp) wrote:
>> >"Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
>news:<9f46v0$2ch$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>> >> The chipset is based on the XBox chipset, in that chipset the cpu has
>> >I read several reports of the xbox demo games crashing at e3 on the xbox.
>>
>> As best as I could find out, the Xbox demo was not run using an nVidia
>> core logic chipset, but rather an Intel one with an nVidia GeForce2
>> video chipset bolted on the AGP bus. I could be wrong, this is just
>> the story I've heard about it.
>
>So basically the Xbox demo was a PC in Xbox clothing? I'm almost certain
>that people are going to be asking a few questions when the real Xbox comes
>out: if you can build an Xbox complete with video, hard disk, dvd player,
>memory and operating system for around $300, why can't you do the same with
>a PC which is the same thing?

Simply speaking, because you can't build an XBox for $300. The
expected cost for Microsoft to produce an XBox is between $425 and
$450, ie they plan on losing a fair bit of money on each XBox sold in
hopes to make it up through software sales (FWIW this is how Sony
works with their PlayStation(2) as well, same with Nintendo and any
others in the game console market).

Other than that though, if you want a PC with it's processor and
memory soldered on a board, integrated graphics and sound, no
expansion slots and no chance of upgrades, you probably could get a
box for not much more then $450. eMachines sells their cheapest box
for $399.


Now, the thing that I'm going to find REALLY neat is when someone
hacks the XBox to run Linux on it (you know it's going to happen, they
already got Linux running on a Playstation, and it's much less like a
PC then the XBox is!). If someone can hack it up nicely enough you
could maybe even put together a Beowulf cluster of XBox's.. Imagine
that, Microsoft making a Linux server!

>> In any case, I think that we could be 99% certain that the XBox crash
>> was caused by software. After all, the XBox essentially runs on a
>> beta version of a brand new Microsoft operating systems, and lets face
>> it, Microsoft hasn't exactly impressed too many people with the
>> stability of their operating systems.
>
>It's time to break that Microsoft monopoly up, as the DOJ has mandated. I
>think we'll see some stability and programming excellence then.

Hehe, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, after all the
appeals and whatnot finally trickle through the court systems, we
MIGHT see something start to happen 5 years down the road. In any
case, I do think that Microsoft should be broken up (into one division
selling JUST the operating system, including Internet Explorer, as
that's essentially part of the OS now, and the other selling all the
end-user applications), however I think that the single biggest thing
that has come out of the whole court order from the DOJ is the
requirement for Microsoft to publish their Win32 specs. This has been
something that they've used to force their way into markets for years.
If they can't beat a product through features, they change the Win32
spec and don't tell anyone about it so everyone else's products break
with new versions of Windows, but Microsoft's products, do to their
"wonderful stability and functionality" still work. It's also made
work on things like WINE (a completely independent library designed to
implement the entire Win32 API) take MUCH longer then they would
otherwise have taken.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 9:23:59 PM6/3/01
to
"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:sgelhtct52lf57oic...@4ax.com...

> >So basically the Xbox demo was a PC in Xbox clothing? I'm almost certain
> >that people are going to be asking a few questions when the real Xbox
comes
> >out: if you can build an Xbox complete with video, hard disk, dvd player,
> >memory and operating system for around $300, why can't you do the same
with
> >a PC which is the same thing?
>
> Simply speaking, because you can't build an XBox for $300. The
> expected cost for Microsoft to produce an XBox is between $425 and
> $450, ie they plan on losing a fair bit of money on each XBox sold in
> hopes to make it up through software sales (FWIW this is how Sony
> works with their PlayStation(2) as well, same with Nintendo and any
> others in the game console market).
>
> Other than that though, if you want a PC with it's processor and
> memory soldered on a board, integrated graphics and sound, no
> expansion slots and no chance of upgrades, you probably could get a
> box for not much more then $450. eMachines sells their cheapest box
> for $399.

Why not? Very few people even upgrade their machines, they just end up
buying new ones. Let's take that reality into account and start building a
disposable PC. You can still have the fully expandable PCs like you do now,
but you just pay more for them. Sort of like the difference between a
disposable camera and a full-featured SLR.

These disposable PCs might just be the ticket needed to start selling PCs to
the third-world. If only *that* damn software company would stop throwing
everything and the kitchen sink into each successive version of the
operating system, making it impossible to run the latest OS on an older PC.
But more on that below.

> >It's time to break that Microsoft monopoly up, as the DOJ has mandated. I
> >think we'll see some stability and programming excellence then.
>
> Hehe, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, after all the
> appeals and whatnot finally trickle through the court systems, we
> MIGHT see something start to happen 5 years down the road. In any
> case, I do think that Microsoft should be broken up (into one division
> selling JUST the operating system, including Internet Explorer, as
> that's essentially part of the OS now, and the other selling all the
> end-user applications), however I think that the single biggest thing
> that has come out of the whole court order from the DOJ is the
> requirement for Microsoft to publish their Win32 specs. This has been
> something that they've used to force their way into markets for years.

So what the hell is happening with that appeal nowadays? I haven't heard
about it for months.

Yousuf Khan


L.Angel

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 1:27:44 AM6/4/01
to
Anthony Hill <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Now, the thing that I'm going to find REALLY neat is when someone
>hacks the XBox to run Linux on it (you know it's going to happen, they
>already got Linux running on a Playstation, and it's much less like a
>PC then the XBox is!).
Okay, you can't be kidding, so what's the purpose of running Linux on
a PS? How and what are they using it to operate? Keyboard rewired into
those controller plugs? Or boots into X by default and point and
click??


The little lost angel & her featherhead's 2 cents worth of dreaminess.

Paul Tiseo

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 9:26:03 AM6/4/01
to
In article <3b1a...@news.netnitco.net>, pmul...@netnitco.net says...

> I have read that the final version of XBox will use an iteration of the
> GeForce 3...nVidia's newest chipset. The talk goes that this will allow
> easy porting of XBox games to PC (for those with the bucks to afford a
> GeForce 3).

However, a recent Computer Games mag that I read highlighted
several games expected to be XBox-only... :(

Paul Tiseo

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 9:25:02 AM6/4/01
to
In article <_Q7S6.124$Vy5....@read2.inet.fi>, pa...@mbnet.fi says...

> Hmm... MSI MS-6367 http://www.msi.com.tw/newsrelease/2001/0601_6367.htm
> Quate "The most mentionable feature is when using 2 DDR, with 128-bit TwinBank
> Architecture; the bandwidth accommodates 4.2GB/s, which is twice faster than
> regular DDR platform" end quate.

Might be your usual marketing fluffing up of facts. I believe the
way it works is that there are two channels, but only one is system
memory. Thus, while the *total* bandwidth is greater than current DDR
chipsets, when compared to other system the bandwidth *seen* by the CPU
is the same...

Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or is this MSI board
actually dedicating both channels to system memory? (is that even
possible?)

chrisv

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 4:41:24 PM6/4/01
to
Paul Tiseo <tiseo...@mayo.edu> wrote:

> Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or is this MSI board
>actually dedicating both channels to system memory? (is that even
>possible?)

Hell, I couldn't even find a statement on what CPU's will be
supported! Both AMD and Intel??

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 9:50:32 PM6/4/01
to

Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.
Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.


>
> Other than that though, if you want a PC with it's processor and
> memory soldered on a board, integrated graphics and sound, no
> expansion slots and no chance of upgrades, you probably could get a
> box for not much more then $450. eMachines sells their cheapest box
> for $399.

If it lasts until you get it home, you'll be disgusted with
its performance. The PackardBell engineers had to find jobs
somewhere, I guess. An XB with a high-end graphics chip
might be interesting, for a buck or three. I'm not rooting
for it though. We'll see.

----
Keith

Hans Bergengren

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 10:08:54 PM6/4/01
to

"Pete Ulrich" <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote:

> I have read that the final version of XBox will use an iteration of the
> GeForce 3...nVidia's newest chipset.

Well, in a sense that is true. In a lesser sense, it is probably true to say
the XBox will use an iteration of the TNT, or maybe even Riva128 chipset.
Much has changed, but basic stuff probably works on just about the same
principles along the magic lines of, "if it's not broken, don't fix it", a
la the 1.13GHz P3 "Tualatin" version released a while ago for laptops that
bears a striking family resemblance to the 1995 Pentium Pro chip.

The more notable changes in the XBox compared to Geforce 3 is a second
vertex shader (programmable T&L processor). There has also been talk of
Nvidia removing the fixed-function T&L processor that GF3 carries over from
the GF2, and the addition of a second triangle setup engine.

> The talk goes that this will allow
> easy porting of XBox games to PC

Not really, since PC games never hit the hardware directly; they always go
through either the Direct3D API, or OpenGL API. XBox will - naturally, since
it's M$'s creation - rely on DirectX and Direct3D, I doubt games will be
allowed low-levwl hardware access. Even if games were allowed that, that
would only HINDER porting them to the PC, since due to the myriad of video
cards on the PC market, the game would have to be reprogrammed - at great
expense - just to make it run. Besides, even if GF3 and XBox were identical
from a hardware standpoint, Win2k and up disallow all direct hardware
access, so ported XBox games would never be able to run under these OSes
unless they were programmed to utilize DirectX function calls.

> (for those with the bucks to afford a GeForce 3).

The chip/card WILL become cheaper. Don't worry... In fact, it's already
happening.


Bye!
/HB.

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:25:24 PM6/4/01
to
HB
Interesting points.....and it will be interesting to see the performance of
XBox. The XBox nVidia video system and GeForce 3 then would be quite
different in that the GeForce 3 chip is described as 'programable'...while
TNT2 and its brothers must still rely on DirectX or OpenGL. As a novice in
this area, it's difficult to understand the idea of a programable video chip
although I imagine this will allow for innovation if software companies find
enough demand. The most amazing thing to me was to read that the GeForce 3
chip has over 57,000,000 transistors, more than most CPUs.

Thanks for your comments.

"Hans Bergengren" <fa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:WaXS6.1917$WW6.2...@newsb.telia.net...

Darren Bremner

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 12:00:55 AM6/5/01
to

"Hans Bergengren" <fa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:WaXS6.1917$WW6.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>.. XBox will - naturally, since

> it's M$'s creation - rely on DirectX and Direct3D, I doubt games will be
> allowed low-levwl hardware access.
In a meeting with Seamus Blackley I asked that exact question. They don't
have
a problem with going direct to the hardware. In fact DX8 is a very
different beast
on the XBox, there is no abstraction, driver etc, it goes direct to the
hardware.


Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:18:09 AM6/6/01
to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:23:59 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote:
>Why not? Very few people even upgrade their machines, they just end up
>buying new ones. Let's take that reality into account and start building a
>disposable PC. You can still have the fully expandable PCs like you do now,
>but you just pay more for them. Sort of like the difference between a
>disposable camera and a full-featured SLR.

It's been tried several times, and generally speaking, this hasn't
been an overwhelming success. Most people (and businesses) seem quite
content to buy in the $800-$1200 price range when they're getting PCs
as long as these PCs are reasonably fast, have some sort of
upgradability (even though such upgradability is rarely used), and
hopefully so that they can be serviced without throwing the whole
thing out altogether. I think enough people have had enough problems
with their PCs not working properly and needing to get fixed that they
aren't inclined to go for a disposable PC along with it's disposable
support.

>These disposable PCs might just be the ticket needed to start selling PCs to
>the third-world.

Well, certainly the Chinese market seems to be the big goal for a lot
of manufacturers these days, and they are definitely looking for lower
cost PCs. Disposable PCs? Probably not, simply because the
difference in price for a disposable PC (that would probably end up
being a lot like the X-Box, at $425-$450 a box) vs. a low-end/low cost
PC (something like that $400 eMachines box I mentioned) simply isn't
worth making them totally disposable.

>So what the hell is happening with that appeal nowadays? I haven't heard
>about it for months.

Sitting in waiting for the most part. There seem to be a lot of delay
tactics going on in this case.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 5:06:53 AM6/6/01
to
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:27:44 GMT, an...@lrigrevol.lovergirl.moc.com
(L.Angel) wrote:
>Anthony Hill <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>Now, the thing that I'm going to find REALLY neat is when someone
>>hacks the XBox to run Linux on it (you know it's going to happen, they
>>already got Linux running on a Playstation, and it's much less like a
>>PC then the XBox is!).
>Okay, you can't be kidding, so what's the purpose of running Linux on
>a PS? How and what are they using it to operate? Keyboard rewired into
>those controller plugs? Or boots into X by default and point and
>click??

Purpose of it? Simply that it can be done I think! There isn't too
much too it yet, mostly just a kernel. You might be able to track
down a bit more info at www.runix.ru if you're interested.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Hans Bergengren

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 8:43:38 AM6/6/01
to

"Darren Bremner" <dar...@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> > I doubt games will be
> > allowed low-levwl hardware access.

> In a meeting with Seamus Blackley I asked that exact question. They don't
> have
> a problem with going direct to the hardware.

Aha! Interesting.

Well, there goes the "easily ported to the PC" argument, right out the
window...! :-)


Bye!
/HB.


Darren Bremner

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 9:40:02 AM6/6/01
to
No, not at all, if your going to do the game for multiple platforms you
either
don't go direct to hardware or write your game taking the other system into
account. I can see how it would be a problem if the original programmers
gave no thought to cross platform publishing, but they would be stupid to
with the future of consoles/gaming so up in the air.

"Hans Bergengren" <fa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message

news:_zpT6.2178$WW6.2...@newsb.telia.net...

Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 3:50:37 PM6/6/01
to
Replying to "Hans Bergengren" <fa...@swipnet.se> :


: > > I doubt games will be


: > > allowed low-levwl hardware access.
:
: > In a meeting with Seamus Blackley I asked that exact question. They don't
: > have
: > a problem with going direct to the hardware.
:
: Aha! Interesting.
:
: Well, there goes the "easily ported to the PC" argument, right out the
: window...! :-)

1) Of course they'll be allowed to hit the metal - they've got to be
competitive against present and upcoming other consoles, and _they_
certainly don't muck around with unnecessary layers of abstraction.

2) Ease of portability is relative. The games will hit the hardware,
but the hardware being hit is an intel CPU and a graphics subsystem
which has close relatives with windows drivers. I can't see that it'll
be MORE difficult to port X-Box games than, say, playstation games,
and we've sure got our share of those (they suck, but we've got'em).

3) Portability may not be DESIRABLE, for either Microsoft or the
software houses, but that's another issue.

: /HB.
:


Michael Norén, Doctoral student,
Stockholm University and Tel: Int +46 (0)8 5195 5163
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 5195 5181
"Nihil umquam facile"

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 9:54:54 PM6/6/01
to
"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:2birht0cq6e05qv2d...@4ax.com...

> It's been tried several times, and generally speaking, this hasn't
> been an overwhelming success. Most people (and businesses) seem quite
> content to buy in the $800-$1200 price range when they're getting PCs
> as long as these PCs are reasonably fast, have some sort of
> upgradability (even though such upgradability is rarely used), and
> hopefully so that they can be serviced without throwing the whole
> thing out altogether. I think enough people have had enough problems
> with their PCs not working properly and needing to get fixed that they
> aren't inclined to go for a disposable PC along with it's disposable
> support.

It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
established PC makers. Established PC makers have a built-in set of
assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.

I think what it's going to take is not a PC maker to pull this off, but a
motherboard manufacturer. Somebody has got to build a system with soldered
on chipset, soldered on RAM, and even a soldered on processor. PC makers
don't have the expertise to make something like this, but mobo makers do.
Remove all of the space currently occupied by such connectors as DIMM slots,
ZIF sockets, PCI or AGP slots, etc. Maybe even integrate the RAM into the
chipset? Make the thing as a flat as a pancake. And then that maker will
have to supply these boards to a multitude of home electronics brand names,
all of them using this manufacturer's boards, but putting their own cases
around it and their own brandnames. If this takes off, then this
manufacturer will have a virtual monopoly for a few months until the
competition shows up with their own soldered-on boards.

These guys should also stuff an operating system into flash, and have the
whole thing load from flash rather than from hard disk: this would mean that
no Microsoft operating system qualifies. And they should keep a small hard
disk for storing files on, and nothing more. Again, no Microsoft software of
any kind allowed here. If you're selling to the third world, they could care
less about Microsoft-compatibility. This thing will be an evolutionary step
between a PDA and a PC.

> >So what the hell is happening with that appeal nowadays? I haven't heard
> >about it for months.
>
> Sitting in waiting for the most part. There seem to be a lot of delay
> tactics going on in this case.

I'm assuming that in the end the government will win this one, even if they
lose a few appeals.

Yousuf Khan


Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 12:24:08 AM6/7/01
to
Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
news:O9BT6.147795$eK2.35...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...

>
> It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
> established PC makers.

I have a question - are you now, or have you ever been in a business where
<10% profit margins are all you can expect?

> Established PC makers have a built-in set of
> assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
> certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.

Funny thing about businesses. They have this idea they never seem to shake
off about making a profit... :-)

>
> I think what it's going to take is not a PC maker to pull this off, but a
> motherboard manufacturer. Somebody has got to build a system with soldered
> on chipset, soldered on RAM, and even a soldered on processor. PC makers
> don't have the expertise to make something like this, but mobo makers do.

People seem to expect service when they buy a product like a PC. If it
doesn't work for *any* reason, they expect an 800 number, with a fully
qualified tech support person answering within 3 rings ready to spend up to
several hours troubleshooting a problem that is probably not the system
anyway, then cover shipping charges back, with a full refund (including
shipping) so they can try out the next system (probably only bought it to
finish that term paper anyway).

A $10 profit such an item means that for each one requiring support
(probably at *least* $100 in costs), you have to sell 11 of them just to
break even - and that is before such standard costs as wages, utilities,
rent, etc. are taken into consideration.

> Remove all of the space currently occupied by such connectors as DIMM
slots,
> ZIF sockets, PCI or AGP slots, etc. Maybe even integrate the RAM into the
> chipset? Make the thing as a flat as a pancake. And then that maker will
> have to supply these boards to a multitude of home electronics brand
names,
> all of them using this manufacturer's boards, but putting their own cases
> around it and their own brandnames. If this takes off, then this
> manufacturer will have a virtual monopoly for a few months until the
> competition shows up with their own soldered-on boards.

OK, so the chipset costs about $40 for the motherboard maker. Figure
another $10 for components, and $10 to slap it together. The board itself
costs $60. Now add a processor and memory... perhaps another $50 to $200,
depending upon the items(?). If they put a VIA Cyix chip on there, the
additional cost is probably about $50 for a 600MHz+ processor and 128MB of
SDRAM.... So, let's figure that this is a $100 cost item. The motherboard
maker sells it for $110 to the electronics shop.

So, the electronics shop has to use a case and PS ($30 to $40?), a HDD
($50?), a floppy(?), a CD reader ($30?) .... and another $10 to slap it
together. Just for grins, let's say that this is a $225 cost item for the
manufacturer. Now, they need a keyboard and mouse - and how about a
monitor? Monitor costs are primarily the royalties on the display type.
Alright - 14" for about $75? (or are you thinking of some low-res, built-in
option?). We are now over $300 in cost. Add 10% for profit, and we
are at $325 at the least. This is e-Machines price range, IIRC. Aren't
they having trouble?

As mentioned above, the *real* cost of a system is the support. People
cost money. In fact, up to 75% of the cost of running a business is wages
(and associated benefits and taxes). This is a fact. It is rarely below
50%. It turns out that the cheapest way to go is just take the item back,
no questions asked, and sell it to the next guy.... and hope you don't get
caught! I think Dell solves this by tearing down the system and reusing
components...

>
> These guys should also stuff an operating system into flash, and have the
> whole thing load from flash rather than from hard disk: this would mean
that
> no Microsoft operating system qualifies.

And exactly what OS would you suggest here? Certainly not Linux??? For
the masses? I think not... at least not yet...

> And they should keep a small hard
> disk for storing files on, and nothing more. Again, no Microsoft software
of
> any kind allowed here. If you're selling to the third world, they could
care
> less about Microsoft-compatibility. This thing will be an evolutionary
step
> between a PDA and a PC.

It still will cost upwards of $400 or more once you include some reasonable
applications that come with anything resembling support... and that is
without any OS costs. I believe you would need to break the $300 price
range to be considered a true throw away appliance where people don't care
much about it's upgradability.

No, personally I don't think this is viable yet. Now, if the DRAM and
processor get integrated into the chipset, you've just lowered the cost of
the system by $50 or more.... Assuming that modem, LAN, sound and video are
all integrated also.

Regards,
Dean

>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>


Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:39:19 AM6/7/01
to
Replying to "Yousuf Khan" <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> :


: It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely


: established PC makers. Established PC makers have a built-in set of
: assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
: certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.
:
: I think what it's going to take is not a PC maker to pull this off, but a
: motherboard manufacturer. Somebody has got to build a system with soldered
: on chipset, soldered on RAM, and even a soldered on processor. PC makers
: don't have the expertise to make something like this, but mobo makers do.
: Remove all of the space currently occupied by such connectors as DIMM slots,
: ZIF sockets, PCI or AGP slots, etc. Maybe even integrate the RAM into the
: chipset? Make the thing as a flat as a pancake.

1) Would YOU buy an unexpandable uncustomizable PC? Why do you assume
others would?

2) The machine you describe above exists and is a commercial success.
It is known as a 'laptop'.

L.Angel

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 5:12:33 AM6/7/01
to
"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>A $10 profit such an item means that for each one requiring support
>(probably at *least* $100 in costs), you have to sell 11 of them just to
>break even - and that is before such standard costs as wages, utilities,
>rent, etc. are taken into consideration.

Probably the reason why most of the decent folks I know quit selling
PCs to home users since a year or two ago leaving it to amateurs like
me to earn a few tens for assembling them :P


>So, the electronics shop has to use a case and PS ($30 to $40?), a HDD
>($50?), a floppy(?), a CD reader ($30?) .... and another $10 to slap it

Unless I'm mistaken it's mor elike US$20 for the casing & low wattage
PS, a Floppy <US$7, CDROM drive <US$25, depending on what kind of HDD
here and I doubt it's going to be even a 15GB 7200RPM, it could go
lower than US$30.00, say around US$80.00 for the above, throw in your
US$110, plus the KB & MS for less than US$5, it's about US$195 sans
profit & monitor. Throw in a 14" for aroud US$75, we get US$270, 10%
profit and it's US$297.00... we made it under US$300 :P

But...

>As mentioned above, the *real* cost of a system is the support. People
>cost money. In fact, up to 75% of the cost of running a business is wages
>(and associated benefits and taxes). This is a fact. It is rarely below

Which is why my friend pointed out that for US$27, he's not going to
bother selling one of these things unless somebody else is going to
support them. And knowing the likely buyers of such systems, I don't
doubt him or that most vendors would care to sell them with support.

And as you mentioned, the support is the crux. Unless people are
willing to buy these things like disc players and not expect to have a
number to call for help, nobody's going to sell them.

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 9:01:23 PM6/7/01
to
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:24:08, "Dean Kent"
<dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:

> Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
> news:O9BT6.147795$eK2.35...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> > It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
> > established PC makers.
>
> I have a question - are you now, or have you ever been in a business where
> <10% profit margins are all you can expect?

..which is why when people ask me what manufacturer to buy
from, I answer "none". ...and don't bother me if you buy
from *any*. (Laptops excepted).

> > Established PC makers have a built-in set of
> > assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
> > certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.
>
> Funny thing about businesses. They have this idea they never seem to shake
> off about making a profit... :-)

Funny thing about business. They will continue to fork over
anything resembling a profit to M$.

----
Keith

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 9:26:29 PM6/7/01
to
Keith R. Williams <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-5dii0jRgqhcf@localhost...

> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:24:08, "Dean Kent"
> <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>

> > I have a question - are you now, or have you ever been in a business
where
> > <10% profit margins are all you can expect?
>
> ..which is why when people ask me what manufacturer to buy
> from, I answer "none". ...and don't bother me if you buy
> from *any*. (Laptops excepted).

Motherboards, processors, memory, sound cards, floppy drives, hard
drives.... they are all <10% profit items. So, how do you get a PC?

> > Funny thing about businesses. They have this idea they never seem to
shake
> > off about making a profit... :-)
>
> Funny thing about business. They will continue to fork over
> anything resembling a profit to M$.

Currently, there are no real alternatives. Linux? Not for home users.
OS/2? Not for home users. There *were* some alternatives once, but not
anymore... the market decided <grin>.

Regards,
Dean


>
> ----
> Keith


Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 9:36:38 PM6/7/01
to
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:54:54 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
<yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote:
>"Anthony Hill" <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
>news:2birht0cq6e05qv2d...@4ax.com...
>> It's been tried several times, and generally speaking, this hasn't
>> been an overwhelming success. Most people (and businesses) seem quite
>> content to buy in the $800-$1200 price range when they're getting PCs
>> as long as these PCs are reasonably fast, have some sort of
>> upgradability (even though such upgradability is rarely used), and
>> hopefully so that they can be serviced without throwing the whole
>> thing out altogether. I think enough people have had enough problems
>> with their PCs not working properly and needing to get fixed that they
>> aren't inclined to go for a disposable PC along with it's disposable
>> support.
>
>It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
>established PC makers. Established PC makers have a built-in set of
>assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
>certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.

Established PC makers are also the only ones that have the marketing
might and capacity to pull off something like this. This has been
tried before by plenty of no-names as well, but no one hears about
them. I think BookPC is the most successful company I've heard of for
the disposable PC market, though I don't know how they're doing now.

>I think what it's going to take is not a PC maker to pull this off, but a
>motherboard manufacturer. Somebody has got to build a system with soldered
>on chipset, soldered on RAM, and even a soldered on processor. PC makers

Perhaps, the above mentioned BookPC is a PCChips company as far as I
can tell. (just checked, it is indeed a PCChips product). The problem
is that this is a zero profit (and typically a losing) market, much
like the "Free PCs" that came out a few years back (ie PCs that were
given away for free along with a contract with an ISP).

>don't have the expertise to make something like this, but mobo makers do.
>Remove all of the space currently occupied by such connectors as DIMM slots,
>ZIF sockets, PCI or AGP slots, etc. Maybe even integrate the RAM into the
>chipset? Make the thing as a flat as a pancake. And then that maker will
>have to supply these boards to a multitude of home electronics brand names,
>all of them using this manufacturer's boards, but putting their own cases
>around it and their own brandnames. If this takes off, then this
>manufacturer will have a virtual monopoly for a few months until the
>competition shows up with their own soldered-on boards.

You basically just described the BookPC to a T. They're still around,
though I don't know how well their sales are going.

>These guys should also stuff an operating system into flash, and have the
>whole thing load from flash rather than from hard disk: this would mean that
>no Microsoft operating system qualifies. And they should keep a small hard
>disk for storing files on, and nothing more. Again, no Microsoft software of
>any kind allowed here. If you're selling to the third world, they could care
>less about Microsoft-compatibility. This thing will be an evolutionary step
>between a PDA and a PC.

It's also not really a big thing, as I said before, "been there, done
that". Profit margins on something like this are essentially
non-existant, so even if someone does get a monopoly on it, no one
else is going to care since a company is more likely to put themselves
out of business by selling them then by not selling them.

>> >So what the hell is happening with that appeal nowadays? I haven't heard
>> >about it for months.
>>
>> Sitting in waiting for the most part. There seem to be a lot of delay
>> tactics going on in this case.
>
>I'm assuming that in the end the government will win this one, even if they
>lose a few appeals.

Probably, though the end result is likely to be much less severe then
the current ruling. Chances are that the government will win but
Microsoft will have bargained them down to a $10 fine or there-abouts.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 12:26:39 AM6/8/01
to
"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:VsDT6.536$rS4....@eagle.america.net...

> Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
> news:O9BT6.147795$eK2.35...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> > It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
> > established PC makers.
>
> I have a question - are you now, or have you ever been in a business where
> <10% profit margins are all you can expect?

And that's why PC people like you shouldn't be involved in making such a
device. You simply have too many assumptions about system building that you
can't think beyond, because "that's the way they've always been built".

> > Established PC makers have a built-in set of
> > assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
> > certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.
>
> Funny thing about businesses. They have this idea they never seem to
shake
> off about making a profit... :-)

Funny thing about businesses, especially established ones, is that they
don't know how to find profit innovatively. They'll putt around doing the
same old thing over and over again, year after year. They'll add a few
things here and there, but nobody knows how to clean house and start from
scratch.

> People seem to expect service when they buy a product like a PC. If it
> doesn't work for *any* reason, they expect an 800 number, with a fully
> qualified tech support person answering within 3 rings ready to spend up
to
> several hours troubleshooting a problem that is probably not the system
> anyway, then cover shipping charges back, with a full refund (including
> shipping) so they can try out the next system (probably only bought it to
> finish that term paper anyway).

NO, NO, NO!!! Don't think like a PC person. Think like a consumer
electronics person instead. In consumer electronics, people don't expect to
sit and talk to a person at some 800 number. All they expect to do is if it
doesn't work, they take it back to the store, the store either repairs it on
site, if they have the capability; or if the problem is too acute they
simply send the device back to the distributor and give the consumer a new
unit. When was the last time you talked to an 800 number for a DVD player
problem, or a stereo problem, or a tv problem? You don't, you simply take it
back to the shop.

And the one big reason why you will not need to consult with a tech support
person on an 800 number is because the one biggest headache of setting up a
PC will be taken away from you: the installation of the OS. You will put the
OS into flashram, so it will be as much a part of the firmware as a BIOS is
in a current generation PC. I'll discuss this below.

> OK, so the chipset costs about $40 for the motherboard maker. Figure
> another $10 for components, and $10 to slap it together. The board
itself
> costs $60. Now add a processor and memory... perhaps another $50 to
$200,
> depending upon the items(?). If they put a VIA Cyix chip on there, the
> additional cost is probably about $50 for a 600MHz+ processor and 128MB of
> SDRAM.... So, let's figure that this is a $100 cost item. The
motherboard
> maker sells it for $110 to the electronics shop.
>
> So, the electronics shop has to use a case and PS ($30 to $40?), a HDD
> ($50?), a floppy(?), a CD reader ($30?) .... and another $10 to slap it
> together. Just for grins, let's say that this is a $225 cost item for
the
> manufacturer. Now, they need a keyboard and mouse - and how about a
> monitor? Monitor costs are primarily the royalties on the display
type.
> Alright - 14" for about $75? (or are you thinking of some low-res,
built-in
> option?). We are now over $300 in cost. Add 10% for profit, and we
> are at $325 at the least. This is e-Machines price range, IIRC.
Aren't
> they having trouble?

E-Machines is having problems because they are a PC maker with a PC
mentality, and so are you. Everything you listed above can be had for much
less, and possibly even eliminated:

-$30-40 for a PS? Forget it, you don't need something like that. Why would
you need it? You won't have any big hungry peripherals to feed, like PCI
cards, full-sized hard drives, etc., because there won't even be slots on
the motherboard for PCI cards or IDE cables. The system may come with a
low-form factor hard disk but it doesn't have to use the standard IDE
interface, though it might use IDE electronics. So an external PS built-into
the power cord (like a laptop PS) should be enough. Without expansion slots,
the mobo should occupy the same amount of space as a standard 5.25" floppy
disk, and it will only be slightly thicker. The external PS would be about
$10. The proprietary hard disk could be had for the $20, capacity might be
5-10Gigs with today's technology, more than enough for holding user-files
because the OS is not sitting on it.

-There's no need for a floppy drive: no OS to install, already built-in.

-CD drive? Have you seen how thin these things can get in a laptop system
these days? But still a CD drive would be unnecessary too, just like with
floppy drives, there's no OS to install. But you might optionally want to
include one for entertainment purposes, for playing audio and DVD's and
stuff. You do all of your transferring, including file transferring, using
standard transfer cables.

-Monitor, mouse, keyboard? You build the computer right into the monitor. Or
right into the keyboard, and they all attach to each other.

-the motherboard electronics themselves would consist of CPU, OS flash,
memory controller, video controller, DRAM. Combine the CPU, memory & video
controllers into one chip, and the OS flash and DRAM into a second chip in
the chipset.

> As mentioned above, the *real* cost of a system is the support. People
> cost money. In fact, up to 75% of the cost of running a business is
wages
> (and associated benefits and taxes). This is a fact. It is rarely
below
> 50%. It turns out that the cheapest way to go is just take the item
back,
> no questions asked, and sell it to the next guy.... and hope you don't get
> caught! I think Dell solves this by tearing down the system and
reusing
> components...

Again, *no OS to install*. It's already preloaded into flash. 90% of trouble
calls eliminated. No device drivers to install, because all of the devices
that are on the machine are ones that came built-into it, another 9.999% of
headaches gone.

> > These guys should also stuff an operating system into flash, and have
the
> > whole thing load from flash rather than from hard disk: this would mean
> that
> > no Microsoft operating system qualifies.
>
> And exactly what OS would you suggest here? Certainly not Linux??? For
> the masses? I think not... at least not yet...

Absolutely Linux. I'll repeat it once again: *no OS to install* -- already
preloaded into flash. Get out of your PC mentality. You can't seriously hope
to load any Windows OS into a limited sized flash device. Linux on the other
hand, you can get it to fit onto and operate out of a floppy diskette and
run a full-featured network router. It only has enough commands to achieve
the routing objectives. All you need is the kernel, and you can put whatever
interface you like on it. Don't need to configure it too much either.

> No, personally I don't think this is viable yet. Now, if the DRAM and
> processor get integrated into the chipset, you've just lowered the cost of
> the system by $50 or more.... Assuming that modem, LAN, sound and video
are
> all integrated also.

Now you're thinking out of the box, and not like a PC person. Yes, integrate
whatever functionality you like, and put it all onto the chipset.

Yousuf Khan


Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 12:36:41 AM6/8/01
to
"Mike Noren" <mikemi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:0a8uht4s8qkq1tlr4...@4ax.com...

> 1) Would YOU buy an unexpandable uncustomizable PC? Why do you assume
> others would?

For the right price, yes. The only reason for wanting to expand a PC at all
is because it's so expensive these days that you may not be able to afford
everything you desire or need right away. If the PC costs like $100-200, I'd
have no qualms about simply throwing out an old one and getting a newer
model in two or three years, if not sooner.

> 2) The machine you describe above exists and is a commercial success.
> It is known as a 'laptop'.

Yes, it is, and the laptop simply doesn't go far enough yet. This amount of
integration in this device would make a laptop look like a hodgepodge of
parts.

Yousuf Khan


Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 1:43:10 AM6/8/01
to
Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
news:tDYT6.158411$eK2.37...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...

>
> Yes, it is, and the laptop simply doesn't go far enough yet. This amount
of
> integration in this device would make a laptop look like a hodgepodge of
> parts.

It would be useless for what a PC is used for. Say 'General Purpose
Computer' several times, and let it sink in. You upgrade a PC because
everything around you changes, and you eventually *have* to in order to
utilize the new software. Of course, this hasn't happened as much
recently... however, if this device were as popular as you think it would
be, you would have to throw it out at *least* once per year and get a new
one. Since the target audience is not the normal PC enthusiast, but the
'low end'... I think you are going to find a lot of resistance there. The
machine *must* be upgradable somehow with regards to software support...

Regards,
Dean

>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>


Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 1:40:02 AM6/8/01
to
Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
news:3uYT6.158297$eK2.37...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...

>
> And that's why PC people like you shouldn't be involved in making such a
> device. You simply have too many assumptions about system building that
you
> can't think beyond, because "that's the way they've always been built".

You go do it and show me your results, otherwise I suggest that you step
back a bit from your pulpit and realize you are basing your entire theory on
assumptions, and that comes dangerously close to hypocrisy...

BTW - I am *not* a PC person. What I do for a living is develop a storage
management product for the mainframe. Since I was the only one who had
ever dabbled in Unix, I do the USS version. I'm also the only one there
who knows anything about web development, simply because I decided to get a
URL in 1996 - that turned into a business.

Can't think beyond.... *sheesh* (with apologies to Keith for using his
trademarked expression).

>
> Funny thing about businesses, especially established ones, is that they
> don't know how to find profit innovatively. They'll putt around doing the
> same old thing over and over again, year after year. They'll add a few
> things here and there, but nobody knows how to clean house and start from
> scratch.

This is generally true. Unfortunately, there have been several attempts to
do exactly what you are suggesting, and they failed. They failed so badly,
you never heard of them, apparently.

>
> NO, NO, NO!!! Don't think like a PC person. Think like a consumer
> electronics person instead. In consumer electronics, people don't expect
to
> sit and talk to a person at some 800 number. All they expect to do is if
it
> doesn't work, they take it back to the store, the store either repairs it
on
> site, if they have the capability; or if the problem is too acute they
> simply send the device back to the distributor and give the consumer a new
> unit. When was the last time you talked to an 800 number for a DVD player
> problem, or a stereo problem, or a tv problem? You don't, you simply take
it
> back to the shop.

It still costs money. As I mentioned previously - people are required to
process paperwork, and with a very low-profit item, you can't just throw it
away or you end up losing your ass. Consider this:

Unit costs $275 to make. You sell it for $299. Your return rate is 5%.
How many units do you have to sell just to make up for the 5% that were
returned and thrown away. If you don't throw them away, how much do you
pay a technician to test and diagnose them, and possibly fix them? Or do
you just repackage and resell them (which is illegal)? Using the Dell
approach, you take them apart and reuse the components... which still takes
someone to do it.

>
> And the one big reason why you will not need to consult with a tech
support
> person on an 800 number is because the one biggest headache of setting up
a
> PC will be taken away from you: the installation of the OS. You will put
the
> OS into flashram, so it will be as much a part of the firmware as a BIOS
is
> in a current generation PC. I'll discuss this below.

The main reason people return an item has little to do with the OS. You
might be surprised to find out what people do with things they have bought
with a credit card - and then return expecting a replacement or full refund
(because the CC company has convinced them that "it is covered" - but they
don't tell you that the vendor is paying the price).

>
>
> E-Machines is having problems because they are a PC maker with a PC
> mentality, and so are you. Everything you listed above can be had for much
> less, and possibly even eliminated:
>
> -$30-40 for a PS? Forget it, you don't need something like that. Why would
> you need it?

Because a PS is the single most important component in an electronic
appliance. For $10, you don't want to risk an additional 5% or 10% return
rate...

You won't have any big hungry peripherals to feed, like PCI
> cards, full-sized hard drives, etc., because there won't even be slots on
> the motherboard for PCI cards or IDE cables. The system may come with a
> low-form factor hard disk but it doesn't have to use the standard IDE
> interface, though it might use IDE electronics. So an external PS
built-into
> the power cord (like a laptop PS) should be enough.

Um, I seriously doubt that the power cord on a laptop has a built in power
supply. Otherwise, I couldn't run the system without it. I think it is
an AC adapter... no? (at least, that's what mine is)

> Without expansion slots,
> the mobo should occupy the same amount of space as a standard 5.25" floppy
> disk, and it will only be slightly thicker. The external PS would be about
> $10. The proprietary hard disk could be had for the $20, capacity might be
> 5-10Gigs with today's technology, more than enough for holding user-files
> because the OS is not sitting on it.

I think you are dreaming on the costs here. Hard disks don't cost less to
make because they have smaller capacity. In fact, the 2.5" FF drives
actually cost more to make per MB than the 3.5" FF drives, if I understand
it correctly.

>
> -There's no need for a floppy drive: no OS to install, already built-in.

What OS? Somebody is going to get license fees, unless it is Linux (good
luck on that one!). What apps are being run? Any royalties on those?
If not, how compatible are they, and how do you keep them compatible with
new releases of web apps and other PC apps that they might need to share
data with. For example, someone wants to view .pdf files - how do they
upgrade to the latest Adobe Acrobat with this system, and who do they call
if something goes wrong?

>
> -CD drive? Have you seen how thin these things can get in a laptop system
> these days? But still a CD drive would be unnecessary too, just like with
> floppy drives, there's no OS to install. But you might optionally want to
> include one for entertainment purposes, for playing audio and DVD's and
> stuff. You do all of your transferring, including file transferring,
using
> standard transfer cables.

So, you have no floppy, no CD... how do you get data into this thing, other
than the keyboard? Standard transfer cables? What are you connecting to?
Another system without input devices? A PC? (gee, if you have a PC, why
do you have one of these things?).

What happens when you need to upgrade the software to take advantage of some
new web technology, or upgrade the XML info, or whatever? Download it from
the web, perhaps... so now you have support costs again, because the people
using this thing are clueless and if *anything* goes wrong they are on...
the 800 support number!

>
> -Monitor, mouse, keyboard? You build the computer right into the monitor.
Or
> right into the keyboard, and they all attach to each other.

That's what laptops do... and guess what? The flat panel display is the
most expensive component on a laptop. Exactly what kind of 'monitor' are
you thinking of? BTW - did you know that one of the the greatest costs of
the monitor is the royalty on the display technology, which is held by only
about three or four companies?

>
> -the motherboard electronics themselves would consist of CPU, OS flash,
> memory controller, video controller, DRAM. Combine the CPU, memory & video
> controllers into one chip, and the OS flash and DRAM into a second chip in
> the chipset.

OK - now you are talking. Unfortunately, integrating the CPU and DRAM
are still not possible in any kind of reasonably small package. If a
'normal' chipset sells for about $35 today, one with integrated CPU and DRAM
would probably cost at *least* 3 to 4 times that.

>
> Again, *no OS to install*. It's already preloaded into flash. 90% of
trouble
> calls eliminated. No device drivers to install, because all of the devices
> that are on the machine are ones that came built-into it, another 9.999%
of
> headaches gone.

You are making the mistake of thinking it is the OS that is the problem. It
is not. The biggest problem is that consumers do not take responsibility
for their own actions, and expect to get a replacement for something that
they dropped, put into a cabinet with no ventilation, put next to the dog
bed, etc. You can bet that at about 5% of all items sold will be returned
for no good reason.

>
> Absolutely Linux. I'll repeat it once again: *no OS to install* -- already
> preloaded into flash. Get out of your PC mentality.

I'll believe that when I see it. I like Linux. I don't think it will fly
as a 'home use' OS for awhile. How do you update the software (which you
*must* do occasionally)? If it is going to run apps, and connect to the
web - it will need updates at some point. People won't pay $300 every
year because they can't download and install patches.

> You can't seriously hope
> to load any Windows OS into a limited sized flash device. Linux on the
other
> hand, you can get it to fit onto and operate out of a floppy diskette and
> run a full-featured network router. It only has enough commands to achieve
> the routing objectives. All you need is the kernel, and you can put
whatever
> interface you like on it. Don't need to configure it too much either.

You will need X-Window support. That won't fit on a floppy. You don't
seriously expect a user of one of these things to use a command line?

>
> Now you're thinking out of the box, and not like a PC person. Yes,
integrate
> whatever functionality you like, and put it all onto the chipset.

*Saying* integration is easy. I'll bet it was easy to say in the 1960's
too... ;-).

You need to stop thinking I am a 'PC person'. I have *never* been a PC
person. I am a computer professional who happens to have some interest in
PCs. I've worked on large mainframes, minis and micros. I have the first
three years of a magazine called Kilobaud, published from 1976 to 1978.
Before accusing someone of basing his/her opinions on assumptions, you need
to address your own... :-).

Regards,
Dean

>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>


Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 3:02:00 AM6/8/01
to
Replying to "Yousuf Khan" <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> :

: "Mike Noren" <mikemi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message


: news:0a8uht4s8qkq1tlr4...@4ax.com...
: > 1) Would YOU buy an unexpandable uncustomizable PC? Why do you assume
: > others would?
:
: For the right price, yes. The only reason for wanting to expand a PC at all
: is because it's so expensive these days that you may not be able to afford
: everything you desire or need right away. If the PC costs like $100-200, I'd
: have no qualms about simply throwing out an old one and getting a newer
: model in two or three years, if not sooner.

There is another thing you should consider: the crap factor.
All the cheap-integrated-PC efforts to date have been crap, for the
simple reason that to be cheap they used the cheapest parts, were
under-spec'd and, not least importantly, were about a year behind the
'standard' PC's wrt technology.

Laptops aren't crap, since they're more expensive and use more
expensive parts, than a standard PC, but they do lag technology-wise.

So, a cheap highly integrated PC will likely have substandard graphics
and sound, and be of questionable quality.

: > 2) The machine you describe above exists and is a commercial success.


: > It is known as a 'laptop'.
:
: Yes, it is, and the laptop simply doesn't go far enough yet. This amount of
: integration in this device would make a laptop look like a hodgepodge of
: parts.

I, personally, am skeptical that it'll be profitable to build such a
device for home users, but a highly integrated PC chipset might still
have its uses. We're going to need devices such as that in vehicles,
mainly cars, and may also be useful where mobility is required for
other purposes - e.g. robotics and home appliances.

: Yousuf Khan

Ray

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 7:02:49 AM6/8/01
to
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:40:02 -0700, Dean Kent <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
>
>This is generally true. Unfortunately, there have been several attempts to
>do exactly what you are suggesting, and they failed. They failed so badly,
>you never heard of them, apparently.

I've seen a few units that looked promising but they were only available on
line. If there is a market for this sort of thing at all it's not among
people who are comfortable buying a computer on the net, they already have a
PC.

>> And the one big reason why you will not need to consult with a tech
>support
>> person on an 800 number is because the one biggest headache of setting up
>a
>> PC will be taken away from you: the installation of the OS. You will put
>the
>> OS into flashram, so it will be as much a part of the firmware as a BIOS
>is
>> in a current generation PC. I'll discuss this below.
>
>The main reason people return an item has little to do with the OS. You
>might be surprised to find out what people do with things they have bought
>with a credit card - and then return expecting a replacement or full refund
>(because the CC company has convinced them that "it is covered" - but they
>don't tell you that the vendor is paying the price).
>

By far the most problems with PCs are with the software, not just the OS
though.

>>
>> -$30-40 for a PS? Forget it, you don't need something like that. Why would
>> you need it?
>
>Because a PS is the single most important component in an electronic
>appliance. For $10, you don't want to risk an additional 5% or 10% return
>rate...

You don't need a $30-$40 supply. If you can't run this thing off a 25W-50W
6-12V supply costing $10-$20 in quantity it's designed wrong.

>I think you are dreaming on the costs here. Hard disks don't cost less to
>make because they have smaller capacity. In fact, the 2.5" FF drives
>actually cost more to make per MB than the 3.5" FF drives, if I understand
>it correctly.

This thing cannot possibly have a hard disk and I wouldn't bother with a
floppy either. I see two options for storage, either store everything on
flash or include a cdrom and run from that (user data still goes on flash).

>
>>
>> -There's no need for a floppy drive: no OS to install, already built-in.
>
>What OS? Somebody is going to get license fees, unless it is Linux (good
>luck on that one!).

Linux would be just fine. The customers isn't going to be installing the
thing just using it.

> What apps are being run?

Free ones. You may need to develope some software of your own or modify
some existing free software but you'll have to do some of that with any OS.

Any royalties on those?

No

>If not, how compatible are they,

Compatable with what?

> and how do you keep them compatible with
>new releases of web apps and other PC apps that they might need to share
>data with. For example, someone wants to view .pdf files - how do they
>upgrade to the latest Adobe Acrobat with this system, and who do they call
>if something goes wrong?

You sure don't let the user go around downloading software from who knows
where and installing it. Maybe package up a release of the OS and apps.
ever 6 months to 1 year and offer it for an additional fee. Updates should
be a lot safer than on a PC because you know exactly what hardware and
software they have.


>
>>
>> -CD drive? Have you seen how thin these things can get in a laptop system
>> these days? But still a CD drive would be unnecessary too, just like with
>> floppy drives, there's no OS to install. But you might optionally want to
>> include one for entertainment purposes, for playing audio and DVD's and
>> stuff. You do all of your transferring, including file transferring,
>using
>> standard transfer cables.
>
>So, you have no floppy, no CD... how do you get data into this thing, other
>than the keyboard?

That's a pretty open ended question, what data? I thought the purpose was
to sell these to people without a PC not as an accessory to one. Those are
two different markets and dictate different devices.

> Standard transfer cables? What are you connecting to?
>Another system without input devices? A PC? (gee, if you have a PC, why
>do you have one of these things?).

The obvious choice is to use the net as a storage/transfer medium but I'm
curious what kinds of data you think an appliance buyer is going to be
transfering?


>What happens when you need to upgrade the software to take advantage of some
>new web technology, or upgrade the XML info, or whatever? Download it from
>the web, perhaps... so now you have support costs again, because the people
>using this thing are clueless and if *anything* goes wrong they are on...
>the 800 support number!

If you design and test the system and updates before shipping them then
there is little to go wrong. You supply all updates and the hardware is a
sealed box so you can make it idiot-resistant. If the OS is on CD just send
them a new one. If the OS is on flash then the truly core stuff had better
be non-writable and have enough smarts to connect to the net and fix its
self. I guess you could use a cf card for your flash if the budget allows.

>
>>
>> -Monitor, mouse, keyboard? You build the computer right into the monitor.
>Or
>> right into the keyboard, and they all attach to each other.
>
>That's what laptops do... and guess what? The flat panel display is the
>most expensive component on a laptop. Exactly what kind of 'monitor' are
>you thinking of? BTW - did you know that one of the the greatest costs of
>the monitor is the royalty on the display technology, which is held by only
>about three or four companies?

Just out of curiosity, any idea how much those royalties amount too?
Personally I think the cost of the display is what will really drive the
cost of this thing up. LCDs are expensive and CRTs will increase your
distribution costs and RMA rates. As bad as TVs are for doing computer
stuff I don't think there is any other choice here. This thing ships with
RCA jacks and port for an optional monitor.


>> You can't seriously hope
>> to load any Windows OS into a limited sized flash device. Linux on the
>other
>> hand, you can get it to fit onto and operate out of a floppy diskette and
>> run a full-featured network router. It only has enough commands to achieve
>> the routing objectives. All you need is the kernel, and you can put
>whatever
>> interface you like on it. Don't need to configure it too much either.
>
>You will need X-Window support. That won't fit on a floppy. You don't
>seriously expect a user of one of these things to use a command line?

Fits great onto a CD. Versions of Linux with X and some apps. have been
crammed onto around 12MB so flash isn't out of the question.

--
Ray

Ray

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 7:09:58 AM6/8/01
to
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:36:38 -0400, Anthony Hill <hi...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:54:54 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
>>
>>It's been tried several times, always by the wrong people: namely
>>established PC makers. Established PC makers have a built-in set of
>>assumptions that they can't shake off. Also established PCers also have
>>certain expectations of profit margins that they can't shake off.
>
>Established PC makers are also the only ones that have the marketing
>might and capacity to pull off something like this. This has been
>tried before by plenty of no-names as well, but no one hears about
>them. I think BookPC is the most successful company I've heard of for
>the disposable PC market, though I don't know how they're doing now.

A BookPC is little more than a microATX all-in-one pc in a smaller box and
costs about the same.

>
>>don't have the expertise to make something like this, but mobo makers do.
>>Remove all of the space currently occupied by such connectors as DIMM slots,
>>ZIF sockets, PCI or AGP slots, etc. Maybe even integrate the RAM into the
>>chipset? Make the thing as a flat as a pancake. And then that maker will
>>have to supply these boards to a multitude of home electronics brand names,
>>all of them using this manufacturer's boards, but putting their own cases
>>around it and their own brandnames. If this takes off, then this
>>manufacturer will have a virtual monopoly for a few months until the
>>competition shows up with their own soldered-on boards.
>
>You basically just described the BookPC to a T. They're still around,
>though I don't know how well their sales are going.

Not really, these things use standard cpu sockets and dimms. No slots
though. Just a pair of PCMCIA slots would make it way more flexable.
Didn't Cyrix have a MediaGX cpu with integrated motherboard:)

--
Ray

Carlo Razzeto

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 10:31:03 AM6/8/01
to
While Linux is great for embedded applications, it's not great for the
masses... Let's face it, Linux can't complete with the cleanliness of a
Windows, Mac, or even BeOS interface. And frankly what it is that the
average consumer really wants is something that's easy to use and preferably
won't give them too big of a headache in terms of support. Unless you want
to also develop your own in house GUI and force the Linux community to write
software which is friendly to your version of Linux and it's GUI, you'll
never really be able to hammer down easy to use. As far as stability,
Microsoft's WindowsXP, while will certainly have the most annoying marketing
champagne to date, will also be more than stable enough seeing as it's built
on the NT kernel.

Carlo

Kev Ford

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 2:30:37 PM6/8/01
to
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:31:03 GMT, Carlo Razzeto <craz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>While Linux is great for embedded applications, it's not great for the
>masses... Let's face it, Linux can't complete with the cleanliness of a
>Windows, Mac, or even BeOS interface. And frankly what it is that the
>average consumer really wants is something that's easy to use and preferably
>won't give them too big of a headache in terms of support. Unless you want
>to also develop your own in house GUI and force the Linux community to write
>software which is friendly to your version of Linux and it's GUI, you'll
>never really be able to hammer down easy to use. As far as stability,
>Microsoft's WindowsXP, while will certainly have the most annoying marketing
>champagne to date, will also be more than stable enough seeing as it's built
>on the NT kernel.
>

You imply that the NT kernel is stable. My mileage varies to yours
considerably.

Carlo Razzeto

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 8:50:31 PM6/8/01
to
Yes I do and I guess we have different expiriances.

Carlo

"Kev Ford" <k...@frod.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9i26e...@frod.demon.co.uk...

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 9:54:33 PM6/8/01
to

Think about how painfull it is to *move* from one system to
another! Good grief! It takes me a year to make sure
everything is right. Even then I keep the old beast
(whether it be system or OS) around to make sure I haven't
lost anything important. Throw away isn't for computers.
It might work for toys.

----
Keith

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 1:45:34 AM6/9/01
to
"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:wCZT6.741$rS4....@eagle.america.net...

> It would be useless for what a PC is used for. Say 'General Purpose
> Computer' several times, and let it sink in. You upgrade a PC because
> everything around you changes, and you eventually *have* to in order to
> utilize the new software. Of course, this hasn't happened as much
> recently... however, if this device were as popular as you think it would
> be, you would have to throw it out at *least* once per year and get a new
> one. Since the target audience is not the normal PC enthusiast, but the
> 'low end'... I think you are going to find a lot of resistance there.
The
> machine *must* be upgradable somehow with regards to software support...

You're still not getting it, still thinking like a PC person. You're so used
to the way things are now, that you can't imagine that the world could have
turned out much differently. You assume that you must upgrade the OS,
replacing one OS with a new one that takes twice the space, for a 10% gain
in featureset. You assume that you must upgrade your hardware to keep up
with the software: bigger hard drives, more powerful processors, every few
years.

None of this is necessary. You can have a general purpose machine still,
meaning it will have office suites, and games available, but the target
platforms will be more static year after year. They will build the
applications with knowledge that these machines come with standard sets of
features: hard disks of certain sizes, processor speed of certain Mhz, 3D
video performance of a certain level. Of course none of this will happen on
a Windows platform, that's why it should avoid the Microsoft solutions like
the plague.

Yousuf Khan


Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 3:20:37 AM6/9/01
to
Yousuf Khan <yk...@nospam.home.com.spam> wrote in message
news:2KiU6.171811$eK2.39...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...

>
> You're still not getting it, still thinking like a PC person. You're so
used
> to the way things are now, that you can't imagine that the world could
have
> turned out much differently. You assume that you must upgrade the OS,
> replacing one OS with a new one that takes twice the space, for a 10% gain
> in featureset. You assume that you must upgrade your hardware to keep up
> with the software: bigger hard drives, more powerful processors, every few
> years.

What I assume is that people buy appliances because they can do everything
they need to with that appliance for many years without replacing it. Even
a $49 coffee maker will serve quite well for years. A $250 VCR will still
play the newest movies in three years or more. A $500 complete stereo
system will still accept tapes, CDs and play the AM/FM radio stations in 5
years. It is not money wasted on something that is obsolete in a year or
two. When it breaks in 5 years, *then* you buy a new one.

When you are talking about anything even resembling a PC, the box *must*
accept upgraded programs somehow. If it is for games, how do you put new
games on? If it is for accounting, how do you put new tax schedules in?
If it is just for schedules, recipes, phone numbers, etc. - there are much
cheaper options available.

Web browsing has the same problem - new release of Java? New versions of
XML? New HTML tags? How do you get support for those?

Who will buy a box for $200 or $300 that is almost guaranteed to be obsolete
in a year or two? No CD? No floppy? What is this machine for?

I have to ask this question again, because I still have not gotten any real
answer: What exactly is this machine for? What does it actually do that
people feel a need for and would be willing to pay $200, $300 or more for?
Even a PS/2 or XBox have input devices to play the latest games... what
will this box do?

>
> None of this is necessary. You can have a general purpose machine still,
> meaning it will have office suites, and games available, but the target
> platforms will be more static year after year. They will build the
> applications with knowledge that these machines come with standard sets of
> features: hard disks of certain sizes, processor speed of certain Mhz, 3D
> video performance of a certain level. Of course none of this will happen
on
> a Windows platform, that's why it should avoid the Microsoft solutions
like
> the plague.

Personally, I think this would flop miserably in the market. Once people
realized they can't put new games on it, or upgrade to use the newest Flash
or Real Video files, or whatever replaces MP3... or whatever, the consumer
would be pissed as hell and never buy another one... Unless it is *so*
cheap, it is a no-brainer (perhaps $49.95?).

If you want it to be upgradable, you need to have some kind of input device
so that people can get the media in their mailbox, or at COSTCO, or from
Amazon.com. General purpose and non-upgradable are contradictory.
General purpose means I can put whatever *I* want on it without having to go
buy a new one...

Regards,
Dean

>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>


Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 8:33:33 PM6/9/01
to
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:20:37, "Dean Kent"
<dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:

> What I assume is that people buy appliances because they can do everything
> they need to with that appliance for many years without replacing it. Even
> a $49 coffee maker will serve quite well for years. A $250 VCR will still
> play the newest movies in three years or more.

Gee, Dean. When was the last time your bought a VCR? ;-)


> A $500 complete stereo
> system will still accept tapes, CDs and play the AM/FM radio stations in 5
> years. It is not money wasted on something that is obsolete in a year or
> two. When it breaks in 5 years, *then* you buy a new one.

..and when another feechur comes along there is the AUX
input.



> When you are talking about anything even resembling a PC, the box *must*
> accept upgraded programs somehow. If it is for games, how do you put new
> games on? If it is for accounting, how do you put new tax schedules in?
> If it is just for schedules, recipes, phone numbers, etc. - there are much
> cheaper options available.

It's not just games. No one knows what the computer is going
to do tomorrow. People still but computers with "upgrade"
in mind, even if they never do. However, most of the
non-techies I know have done at least one upgrade to their
systems, whether it be memory or a ENet card for DSL/cable.
An appliance would be a doorstop.

> Web browsing has the same problem - new release of Java? New versions of
> XML? New HTML tags? How do you get support for those?

> Who will buy a box for $200 or $300 that is almost guaranteed to be obsolete
> in a year or two? No CD? No floppy? What is this machine for?

M$ wants to sell your a web appliance (to replace the PC)
where you rent software. Seems like everyone would like
this. No?

> I have to ask this question again, because I still have not gotten any real
> answer: What exactly is this machine for? What does it actually do that
> people feel a need for and would be willing to pay $200, $300 or more for?
> Even a PS/2 or XBox have input devices to play the latest games... what
> will this box do?

Be an expensive XBox.

----
Keith

Ray

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 9:04:29 PM6/9/01
to
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:30:37 +0100, Kev Ford <k...@frod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You imply that the NT kernel is stable. My mileage varies to yours
>considerably.

It generally is. Not as good as some maybe but a completely different level
from 9x.

--
Ray

Ray

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 9:17:34 PM6/9/01
to
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:20:37 -0700, Dean Kent <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I think this would flop miserably in the market. Once people
>realized they can't put new games on it, or upgrade to use the newest Flash
>or Real Video files, or whatever replaces MP3... or whatever, the consumer
>would be pissed as hell and never buy another one... Unless it is *so*
>cheap, it is a no-brainer (perhaps $49.95?).

Lots of people already get buy with 486's and low end Pendiums that can't
adequately run the latest software. I agree that there needs some method
of upgrades but it doesn't have to be as flexable as a PC either.


Courageous

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 10:09:30 PM6/9/01
to
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:04:29 GMT, ra...@sonictech.net (Ray) wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:30:37 +0100, Kev Ford <k...@frod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>You imply that the NT kernel is stable. My mileage varies to yours
>>considerably.

I'm a software developer, and I have *never* crashed my Windows 2K
kernel (NT 4.0 crashed quite a bit, however). Note that I don't particularly
care for Windows and would rather be developing under Linux by and
large. Anyway, YMMV.

C//

Yousuf Khan

unread,
Jun 9, 2001, 10:25:57 PM6/9/01
to
"Courageous" <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:p2m5its86to71pfur...@4ax.com...

Haven't really had a crash with either NT 4.0 nor 2000, but performance has
been another matter. Not entirely pleased with the performance of either
one, some wierd peaks and valleys of performance from out of nowhere.

Yousuf Khan


Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:14:34 AM6/11/01
to
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:31:03 GMT, "Carlo Razzeto"
<craz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>While Linux is great for embedded applications, it's not great for the
>masses... Let's face it, Linux can't complete with the cleanliness of a
>Windows, Mac, or even BeOS interface.

I've used Linux off and on for about 6 years now. When it first came
out, it was tricky as all hell to get working properly. Just a few
weeks ago I installed Mandrake Linux 8.0, and it was a piece of cake.
In that time I've seen Win3.1 being replaced by Win9x and then
WinNT/Win2000. Right now Linux has WinNT 4.0 beat cold in terms of
ease of use/installing, and NT 4.0 is still used by a lot of
corporations and even home users. Win2K was, IMO, a big step forward
for Microsoft, as was Win95 (though 95 had WAY too many bugs
initially). With Linux though, I've seen a LOT more big steps
forward. No, it's not quite at the ease of use of Win2K or WinME yet,
but it's damn close. When it comes to some non-trivial setup things,
Linux has these operating systems beat as well.

> And frankly what it is that the
>average consumer really wants is something that's easy to use and preferably
>won't give them too big of a headache in terms of support. Unless you want
>to also develop your own in house GUI and force the Linux community to write
>software which is friendly to your version of Linux and it's GUI, you'll
>never really be able to hammer down easy to use. As far as stability,
>Microsoft's WindowsXP, while will certainly have the most annoying marketing
>champagne to date, will also be more than stable enough seeing as it's built
>on the NT kernel.

I certainly hope that WinXP finally eliminates the last remnants of
Win9x and it's total lack of any form of stability. WinNT and Win2K
have been stable enough, though they're not quite up to par with Linux
and certainly not on the level of Solaris or the like. But Microsoft
definitely does have some competition looming from Linux on the
desktop. The real problem with Linux right now is not that it's
complicated, but merely different. A number of public schools have
already found this when installing Linux on their computer lab systems
in order to save precious funds. The kids pick up Linux just as
easily as they could pick up Windows, it's only the people that are
used to Windows that have problems changing over to the different
operating system.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Harry McGregor

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:46:14 PM6/11/01
to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Anthony Hill wrote:

<snip>

> A number of public schools have
> already found this when installing Linux on their computer lab systems
> in order to save precious funds. The kids pick up Linux just as
> easily as they could pick up Windows, it's only the people that are
> used to Windows that have problems changing over to the different
> operating system.

Correct, take a look at this article about what we have been doing with
one public school in Tucson, AZ, US.

http://www.osef.org/articles_and_letters/azstar/whizkids.html

The students love the systems, and are doing great on them (We have since
recived upgraded systems from the Students first program of the state of
Arizona, now the lab is PIII 733s (compaqs, UGH), and came with NT4
licenses, we have setup NT4, for some testing programs, but the students
still use the Linux side for the daily use, it's just much cleaner, and
simpler for them to use).

Also this school was just awarded National School Library Media Program of
the year, by the American Library Association, a lot of what made the
award possible would not have been possible without the lab, and without
Linux and Open Source Software.

http://www.corbettschool.org/~kimgrimes/ala.letter.gif

Harry

> -----------------------
> Tony Hill
> hi...@uoguelph.ca
>

--
Harry McGregor, CEO, Co-Founder
Hmcg...@osef.org, (520) 661-7875 (CELL)
Open Source Education Foundation, http://www.osef.org

Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 4:27:31 AM6/12/01
to
Replying to Harry McGregor <mic...@azstarnet.com> :

: > A number of public schools have


: > already found this when installing Linux on their computer lab systems
: > in order to save precious funds. The kids pick up Linux just as
: > easily as they could pick up Windows, it's only the people that are
: > used to Windows that have problems changing over to the different
: > operating system.
:
: Correct, take a look at this article about what we have been doing with
: one public school in Tucson, AZ, US.
:
: http://www.osef.org/articles_and_letters/azstar/whizkids.html

As easy as the newest versions of linux may be to use for users who
only use a handful of programs and in well defined ways, it's still a
b*tch to configure, and it's still got a very limited software base
(and no, the vast amount of highly specialized freeware/shareware
available really doesn't count).

Personally I think the standard suggestions given to people who are
having problems says quite a lot about a) the OS, and b) the intended
user.
On the mac when you have problems the standard reply is to turn off
extensions and buy more RAM. If you run into problems on a Windows
machine people will tell you to update your drivers or reinstall the
offending app/the OS.

Under linux people will tell you to debug the source code and
recompile.

Also anyone who works with linux outside of XWindows, and admins/home
users will, must face the fundamental arcane abstruseness of the OS.
It's a joint venture by thousands of people, and it shows.

Disclaimer to appease the anti-MS'ians and pro-linuxians, not always
the same people: no, I'm not saying that Windows is perfect or even
that it is better than linux. I'm saying that there's room for
improvement even under linux, and that for many, particularly Joe
Average Home User, linux isn't necessarily the best choice for OS.

FWIW, I think WinXP will absolutely *crush* all competition in all
segments except servers, where probably unix/linux and nt will
continue to reign.

(Incidentally, is WinXP reminiscent of MagicWB on the Amiga, or is it
just me? There's something about those oversized, slightly tacky,
icons, about the way the pointer disappears when you type text...)

Kev Ford

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 6:22:30 AM6/12/01
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:27:31 +0200, Mike Noren <mikemi...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:

>Replying to Harry McGregor <mic...@azstarnet.com> :
>
>: > A number of public schools have
>: > already found this when installing Linux on their computer lab systems
>: > in order to save precious funds. The kids pick up Linux just as
>: > easily as they could pick up Windows, it's only the people that are
>: > used to Windows that have problems changing over to the different
>: > operating system.
>:
>: Correct, take a look at this article about what we have been doing with
>: one public school in Tucson, AZ, US.
>:
>: http://www.osef.org/articles_and_letters/azstar/whizkids.html
>
>As easy as the newest versions of linux may be to use for users who
>only use a handful of programs and in well defined ways, it's still a
>b*tch to configure, and it's still got a very limited software base
>(and no, the vast amount of highly specialized freeware/shareware
>available really doesn't count).
>

It's a vicious circle, people say mmm well I'd like to use it but it
doesn't have X, so I won't. This ignores the fact that it has Y and
Z which Windblows doesn't, and also that unless they actually *ask*
for it producers will never port it.

>Personally I think the standard suggestions given to people who are
>having problems says quite a lot about a) the OS, and b) the intended
>user.
>On the mac when you have problems the standard reply is to turn off
>extensions and buy more RAM. If you run into problems on a Windows
>machine people will tell you to update your drivers or reinstall the
>offending app/the OS.
>
>Under linux people will tell you to debug the source code and
>recompile.

That's bad advice. I have yet to find an open source project where
the developers have said "No! Do it yourself!". Debugging code is
for the masochistic and the desperate. Open source developers are
generally a very helpful bunch (certainly more helpful than M$) and
will take suggestions on board and put them on the wishlist. Most
Linux stuff is distributed in binary format these days, with source
code available for the awkward people (like me) who like to use old
Alphas, or maybe customise it to suit their taste.

>
>Also anyone who works with linux outside of XWindows, and admins/home
>users will, must face the fundamental arcane abstruseness of the OS.
>It's a joint venture by thousands of people, and it shows.
>

To be honest I think it's just another Unix, only a friendlier one,
but then I work with Solaris every day, and it's taking its toll on
me :-). The core code has been there for years, because RMS and friends
wrote it and it works.... the same commands exist on commercial Unix
o/s's but are probably orders of magnitude slower or more poorly featured.

Whilst KWord may not look like Gnumeric, it doesn't make them any less
compatible, and it least they're not all grey!! (Sorry but I find the
Windows desktop the most depressing part of my life at the moment, but
then I would say that as I am a Linux advocate!).

>Disclaimer to appease the anti-MS'ians and pro-linuxians, not always
>the same people: no, I'm not saying that Windows is perfect or even
>that it is better than linux. I'm saying that there's room for
>improvement even under linux, and that for many, particularly Joe
>Average Home User, linux isn't necessarily the best choice for OS.
>

Absolutely. But then without the years and years of training that most
M$ users don't realise they've had, neither is Windows. Most people
my age (25) have grown up with DOS, Word 2, Win 3.0, Win 3.1, Word for
Windows, Win95/8/Me, Office 95, 2000, and other bits and bobs,
and possibly NT/2000. Each new version adds features to the last, and
in that way I respect the way Microsoft have engineered it, it is a
superb incremental training system. A case in point is my girlfriends
sister, she had never used a PC before age of 19 (the deprived North
etc.) and would rather use my Linux KDE than her Win98 machine. Sit
someone down at a PC for the first time and the ease of use etc. is
subjective at best.

>FWIW, I think WinXP will absolutely *crush* all competition in all
>segments except servers, where probably unix/linux and nt will
>continue to reign.
>

The future is hard to see :). Microsoft are adding a _lot_ of
undesirable stuff into XP, as some sort of o/s ultimatum, ie. proper
licensing, anti-mp3, locking certain files to certain machines (just
try playing a wma file off someone else's PC over the network). They
are very much saying 'right we are going this way now, follow us or
lump it'. When you talk about XP 'crushing' everything else, Linux
people say 'this is all we need to gain critical mass'. An awful lot
of my colleagues are waiting for a good reason to ditch M$, and Linux
on its own isn't quite it. XP may push them though. I can see Hard
Drive sales falling too. M$ getting scared of IBM?

>(Incidentally, is WinXP reminiscent of MagicWB on the Amiga, or is it
>just me? There's something about those oversized, slightly tacky,
>icons, about the way the pointer disappears when you type text...)
>

Well in that case whoever owns that software should have a word, as
this kind of shameless idea theft has gone on far too long. The
'Personal Bar' in IE6 looks suspiciously like 'My Sidebar' in
Mozilla for instance.

--

Kev Ford

E-Mail: k...@frod.demon.co.uk
Web: http://frod.demon.co.uk
Mobile: 07740-302995
ICQ: 19382011

Gav

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 6:16:08 AM6/12/01
to
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:50:32 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
Williams) wrote:


>> Simply speaking, because you can't build an XBox for $300. The
>> expected cost for Microsoft to produce an XBox is between $425 and
>> $450, ie they plan on losing a fair bit of money on each XBox sold in
>> hopes to make it up through software sales (FWIW this is how Sony
>> works with their PlayStation(2) as well, same with Nintendo and any
>> others in the game console market).
>
>Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
>clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.

... in the personal computer marketspace. NOT the console market.


> Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.

They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
leveraging any monopoly. ALL of the console makers effectively take a
loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
Its how the market works.


Gav

--
My _real_ email address is:
gavan(hypen)martin(dot)moran(at)ubs(dot)com
All opinions purely my own

Martin Høyer Kristiansen

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 7:37:43 AM6/12/01
to
Gav wrote:
> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
> leveraging any monopoly. ALL of the console makers effectively take a
> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
> Its how the market works.

Sony being the exception, as they don't (to my knowledge) produce games
themselves. Microsoft has a substantial games business and Nintendo is
the largest game stdui/publisher in the world so would make sense for
those two to recoup some of the cost of the hardware .

Cheers
Martin

David J. Dachtera

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 3:08:09 PM6/12/01
to
Mike Noren wrote:
> [snip]

> (Incidentally, is WinXP reminiscent of MagicWB on the Amiga, or is it
> just me? There's something about those oversized, slightly tacky,
> icons, about the way the pointer disappears when you type text...)

Oh - you mean like in W/3.0?

--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 8:06:56 AM6/12/01
to
Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:3b25eb47...@news.ubs.ch...

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:50:32 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
> Williams) wrote:
>
> >
> >Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
> >clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.
>
> ... in the personal computer marketspace. NOT the console market.

Anti-trust laws specifically prohibit leveraging monopoly power in one
market to gain entrance into another. What is the point of leveraging a
monopoly in one's own market?

>
>
> > Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.
>
> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
> leveraging any monopoly. ALL of the console makers effectively take a
> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
> Its how the market works.

Once a company has been ruled to be a monopoly, the rules change for that
company. Whether you like it or not, this is the law. MS is a monopoly
in the PC OS market, therefore they cannot leverage that to gain entrance
into the gaming console market according to the law.

The only question I have is whether one can claim that doing what everyone
else in that market are doing is 'leveraging'. Perhaps if it could be
proven that they lose *more* money than the others??? ;-)

Regards,
Dean

Matt

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 3:45:01 PM6/12/01
to
"Martin Høyer Kristiansen" <mar...@netimage.dk> wrote in message
news:3B25FF07...@netimage.dk...

Sony doesnt need to produce games. They make the money back from the licensing
fees/royaltees they collect off PS/PS2 game sales.

Gav

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 7:48:58 AM6/12/01
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:37:43 +0200, Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=F8yer?=
Kristiansen <mar...@netimage.dk> wrote:

>Gav wrote:
>> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
>> leveraging any monopoly. ALL of the console makers effectively take a
>> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
>> Its how the market works.
>
>Sony being the exception, as they don't (to my knowledge) produce games
>themselves.

Thats not the point - they make the bulk of the money from LICENSING
FEES paid by software companies who want to make games for the
console.

(fyi Sony own 'Sony Computer Entertainment' and a couple of software
houses like Psygnosis for example)

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 12, 2001, 8:34:35 PM6/12/01
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:16:08,
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid
(Gav) wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:50:32 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
> Williams) wrote:
>
>
> >> Simply speaking, because you can't build an XBox for $300. The
> >> expected cost for Microsoft to produce an XBox is between $425 and
> >> $450, ie they plan on losing a fair bit of money on each XBox sold in
> >> hopes to make it up through software sales (FWIW this is how Sony
> >> works with their PlayStation(2) as well, same with Nintendo and any
> >> others in the game console market).
> >
> >Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
> >clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.
>
> ... in the personal computer marketspace. NOT the console market.
>
>
> > Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.
>
> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
> leveraging any monopoly.

Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
person knew this forever) of being a monopoly. They cannot
then use this income to support a losing scheme to take over
other markets. This is sorta the definition of "leverage".

> ALL of the console makers effectively take a
> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
> Its how the market works.

That may be true, but Gillette doesn't have a monopoly on
razor blades, so it can lose money on razors to build market
for its blades. HP doesn't have a monopoly on its inkjets,
so they can give the things away and make $1B on ink. M$
has monopoly power. Under US law they cannot use that
power. That most *definitly* includes losing money to try to
move into other markets other markets.

----
Keith


Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 1:33:19 AM6/13/01
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:27:31 +0200, Mike Noren
<mikemi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Replying to Harry McGregor <mic...@azstarnet.com> :
>
>: > A number of public schools have
>: > already found this when installing Linux on their computer lab systems
>: > in order to save precious funds. The kids pick up Linux just as
>: > easily as they could pick up Windows, it's only the people that are
>: > used to Windows that have problems changing over to the different
>: > operating system.
>:
>: Correct, take a look at this article about what we have been doing with
>: one public school in Tucson, AZ, US.
>:
>: http://www.osef.org/articles_and_letters/azstar/whizkids.html
>
>As easy as the newest versions of linux may be to use for users who
>only use a handful of programs and in well defined ways, it's still a
>b*tch to configure,

Have you installed Linux recently? It's definitely easier to
configure than WinNT 4.0 is, that's for certain, but I never saw
people complaining about how WinNT 4.0 is a b*tch to configure.

> and it's still got a very limited software base
>(and no, the vast amount of highly specialized freeware/shareware
>available really doesn't count).

Can you name a single type of application that doesn't exist in a
fairly stable and functional state? There are a few areas where
Windows or Macs have slightly better support, and there are others
that Linux has better support for. For me, right now, Agent
Newsreader and games are the only things I do that I find are really
superior under Windows (though PAN is getting pretty decent for a
Linux newsreader, plus I guess Agent does run fairly well under WINE
in Linux).

>Personally I think the standard suggestions given to people who are
>having problems says quite a lot about a) the OS, and b) the intended
>user.
>On the mac when you have problems the standard reply is to turn off
>extensions and buy more RAM. If you run into problems on a Windows
>machine people will tell you to update your drivers or reinstall the
>offending app/the OS.

I dunno, last time I talked to an OEM for support their suggest was
"Format and reinstall the operating system" :>

>Under linux people will tell you to debug the source code and
>recompile.

I have yet to have ANYONE suggest to me to debug the source code. I
have had a few people ask me for a detailed bug report when I did run
into a problem with their code, but in all those cases they were
expecting to do the debugging themselves. Recompiling is sometime
suggested, though typically only to people who seem/are familiar with
*nix and software development.

>Also anyone who works with linux outside of XWindows, and admins/home
>users will, must face the fundamental arcane abstruseness of the OS.
>It's a joint venture by thousands of people, and it shows.
>
>Disclaimer to appease the anti-MS'ians and pro-linuxians, not always
>the same people: no, I'm not saying that Windows is perfect or even
>that it is better than linux. I'm saying that there's room for
>improvement even under linux, and that for many, particularly Joe
>Average Home User, linux isn't necessarily the best choice for OS.

This is definitely true. Linux is not as easy to install as Win2K or
WinMe yet, and it is still a little rough around the edges. However,
if we compare where Linux was when Win95 was released to where it is
today, and then compare what Win95 brought to the table to what is
available in WinMe or even Win2K, I'd say that the Linux community has
made about 10-fold more improvements then MS has, to the point where
in my areas it is now more functional and easier to use then Windows
for some things.

>FWIW, I think WinXP will absolutely *crush* all competition in all
>segments except servers, where probably unix/linux and nt will
>continue to reign.

I'm not entirely convinced of that yet. WinXP does bring some nice
new features, but for the most part it looks to me to mainly be a
facelift for Win2K (which I do like BTW). A lot of the features I've
seen in WinXP haven't exactly excited me at all, and mostly seem to be
of the fancy bells and whistles variety (ie new Internet Explorer, new
Media Player, etc.) I haven't seen too many real core enhancements
over Win2K that I think are really going to be useful, but I could be
wrong. I have not yet had a chance to try out WinXP, so I'll wait
until I do so before passing final judgement. On the upside, I am
quite excited that WinXP will be FINALLY ditching the total lack of
stability of the Win9x kernel.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Harry McGregor

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 2:00:23 AM6/13/01
to
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Mike Noren wrote:

> As easy as the newest versions of linux may be to use for users who
> only use a handful of programs and in well defined ways, it's still a
> b*tch to configure, and it's still got a very limited software base
> (and no, the vast amount of highly specialized freeware/shareware
> available really doesn't count).

Remember I am only talking about the education and corp desktop, not the
home user, and not the so called "power user" desktop.

> Personally I think the standard suggestions given to people who are
> having problems says quite a lot about a) the OS, and b) the intended
> user.
> On the mac when you have problems the standard reply is to turn off
> extensions and buy more RAM. If you run into problems on a Windows
> machine people will tell you to update your drivers or reinstall the
> offending app/the OS.
>
> Under linux people will tell you to debug the source code and
> recompile.

Nope, the first question would probably be "cat filexyz" and what does it
say about line blah blah blah.

> Also anyone who works with linux outside of XWindows, and admins/home
> users will, must face the fundamental arcane abstruseness of the OS.
> It's a joint venture by thousands of people, and it shows.

Linux is quite easy to maintain on a large scale on the desktop
envireonment with skilled admins. The per seat admin time is much less
than MS on the desktop (I deal with both), but the learning curve is
harder for the *NIX setup.

> Disclaimer to appease the anti-MS'ians and pro-linuxians, not always
> the same people: no, I'm not saying that Windows is perfect or even
> that it is better than linux. I'm saying that there's room for
> improvement even under linux, and that for many, particularly Joe
> Average Home User, linux isn't necessarily the best choice for OS.

Remember, we are not talking about the home desktop where the user=admin
we are talking controled environements. Think of Linux on the desktop at
home, kinda like you would Win2K pro, properly setup with multiple logins
and security on the home desktop.

> FWIW, I think WinXP will absolutely *crush* all competition in all
> segments except servers, where probably unix/linux and nt will
> continue to reign.
>
> (Incidentally, is WinXP reminiscent of MagicWB on the Amiga, or is it
> just me? There's something about those oversized, slightly tacky,
> icons, about the way the pointer disappears when you type text...)
>
>
> Michael Norén, Doctoral student,
> Stockholm University and Tel: Int +46 (0)8 5195 5163
> Swedish Museum of Natural History, Fax: Int +46 (0)8 5195 5181
> "Nihil umquam facile"
>

Harry

Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 3:27:08 AM6/13/01
to
Replying to Anthony Hill <hi...@uoguelph.ca> :

: >As easy as the newest versions of linux may be to use for users who


: >only use a handful of programs and in well defined ways, it's still a
: >b*tch to configure,
:
: Have you installed Linux recently? It's definitely easier to
: configure than WinNT 4.0 is, that's for certain, but I never saw
: people complaining about how WinNT 4.0 is a b*tch to configure.

It may be that server OS's can't be made easy to configure - which if
so is just another reason for Joe Average Home User not to get a
server OS.

: > and it's still got a very limited software base


: >(and no, the vast amount of highly specialized freeware/shareware
: >available really doesn't count).
:
: Can you name a single type of application that doesn't exist in a
: fairly stable and functional state?

I think you misunderstood me - it doesn't matter if the type of
application is represented, or even if the present instance is better
than the Mac/Windows equivalent. What matters is that Joe Average Home
User (JAHU) knows about and has used the Mac/Win equivalent. When he
finds out that the apps he knows doesn't exist under linux, he's put
off from using it, and telling him that "there's this shareware
program..." doesn't cut it.

Yes, it is a catch 22 situation, but there you are.

: There are a few areas where


: Windows or Macs have slightly better support, and there are others
: that Linux has better support for. For me, right now, Agent
: Newsreader and games are the only things I do that I find are really
: superior under Windows

Games are quite important for home use. Would we have chipsets like
Geforce3 or GHz processors otherwise?

: >On the mac when you have problems the standard reply is to turn off


: >extensions and buy more RAM. If you run into problems on a Windows
: >machine people will tell you to update your drivers or reinstall the
: >offending app/the OS.
:
: I dunno, last time I talked to an OEM for support their suggest was
: "Format and reinstall the operating system" :>

Yep. The brute force approach to fixing problems caused by a crap file
system...

: This is definitely true. Linux is not as easy to install as Win2K or


: WinMe yet, and it is still a little rough around the edges. However,
: if we compare where Linux was when Win95 was released to where it is
: today, and then compare what Win95 brought to the table to what is
: available in WinMe or even Win2K, I'd say that the Linux community has
: made about 10-fold more improvements then MS has, to the point where
: in my areas it is now more functional and easier to use then Windows
: for some things.
:
: >FWIW, I think WinXP will absolutely *crush* all competition in all
: >segments except servers, where probably unix/linux and nt will
: >continue to reign.
:
: I'm not entirely convinced of that yet. WinXP does bring some nice
: new features, but for the most part it looks to me to mainly be a
: facelift for Win2K (which I do like BTW).

I would agree with that, even though the multi-user capability isn't
quite up to snuff IMO. However, it seems set to replace Win9X/ME,
which certainly is a good thing. ME started the transition from DOS by
disallowing booting into DOS (yes, there are patches, yes, DOS is
still there), and under XP it's finally pretty much gone. Also
replacing FAT32 with NTFS is a great leap for humanity, it's got a
firewall, it is fast and it runs games. The downside is that it eats
memory like a Mac (128MB is _not_ enough), basically all old system
programs (Mother Board Manager, NVTweak, Rain...) cease to work, and
to me the 'remote desktop' feature seems like a security hole the size
of Texas.

Hopefully some of the rough edges will be filed off before release - I
mean, surely 128MB RAM should be enough to play MP3's in WinAmp and
have Word open at the same time without the computer bogging down?

: A lot of the features I've


: seen in WinXP haven't exactly excited me at all, and mostly seem to be
: of the fancy bells and whistles variety (ie new Internet Explorer, new
: Media Player, etc.)

Yes. Turning off some of the b&w's greatly improves performance.

: Tony Hill
: hi...@uoguelph.ca

Gav

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 3:42:32 AM6/13/01
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:34:35 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
Williams) wrote:


>> >Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
>> >clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.
>>
>> ... in the personal computer marketspace. NOT the console market.
>>
>>
>> > Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.
>>
>> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
>> leveraging any monopoly.
>
>Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
>person knew this forever) of being a monopoly. They cannot
>then use this income to support a losing scheme to take over
>other markets. This is sorta the definition of "leverage".

Exactly HOW are they leveraging their position in the personal
computer market to gain advantage in the console market?


>> ALL of the console makers effectively take a
>> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
>> Its how the market works.
>
>That may be true, but Gillette doesn't have a monopoly on
>razor blades, so it can lose money on razors to build market
>for its blades. HP doesn't have a monopoly on its inkjets,
>so they can give the things away and make $1B on ink. M$
>has monopoly power. Under US law they cannot use that
>power.

Try to lose your bias for a moment. MS are operating exactly the
same model as any other console manufacturer - sell the hardware at a
loss to make money off of licensing the games. Theres no leveraging
of existing monopolies involved.


>That most *definitly* includes losing money to try to
>move into other markets other markets.

Utter rubbish. Losing money on the hardware is part of the
business model of the console market .


Gee, maybe you could send your clueful insights to the DOJ. I'm
sure they could use an intelligent guy like you to tell them how to do
their jobs.

Martin Høyer Kristiansen

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 5:43:25 AM6/13/01
to
Gav wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:37:43 +0200, Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=F8yer?=
> Kristiansen <mar...@netimage.dk> wrote:
>
> >Gav wrote:
> >> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
> >> leveraging any monopoly. ALL of the console makers effectively take a
> >> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
> >> Its how the market works.
> >
> >Sony being the exception, as they don't (to my knowledge) produce games
> >themselves.
>
> Thats not the point - they make the bulk of the money from LICENSING
> FEES paid by software companies who want to make games for the
> console.

I thought Sony's license fees very really low. At least they were for
the PS 1. That and the cheaper reproduction of meadia and cheaper
development platform beat Nintendo (Nintendo:some SGI monster... -> no
garage development of games) .

> (fyi Sony own 'Sony Computer Entertainment' and a couple of software
> houses like Psygnosis for example)

Oh, ... wasn't ware of that. Good point. Indeed it seems that Sony has
quite some muscle in the games market then.

Cheers
Martin

Paul Tiseo

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 7:59:51 AM6/13/01
to
In article <pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-G62dXWRdwQWm@localhost>, k...@attglobal.net
says...
> Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
> person knew this forever) of being a monopoly.

Until they win on appeal??? ;)

(Any opinions expressed are stricly mine only and not my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Intermediate Systems Programmer
Birdsall 3, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville
4500 San Pablo Rd, FL, 32224
tiseo...@mayo.edu -- (904) 953-8254

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 9:10:45 PM6/13/01
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:42:32,
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid
(Gav) wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:34:35 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
> Williams) wrote:
>
>
> >> >Oh boy. I wish the DOJ had any spine at all. This is
> >> >clearly illegal now that M$ has been found to be a monopoly.
> >>
> >> ... in the personal computer marketspace. NOT the console market.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Leveraging a monopoly is a *BAD* thing to do.
> >>
> >> They don't have ANY presence in the console market so they're not
> >> leveraging any monopoly.
> >
> >Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
> >person knew this forever) of being a monopoly. They cannot
> >then use this income to support a losing scheme to take over
> >other markets. This is sorta the definition of "leverage".
>
> Exactly HOW are they leveraging their position in the personal
> computer market to gain advantage in the console market?

Just what don't you understand by the term: LEVERAGE? They
are obviously leveraging their Win* monopoly into the game
space. Hint: They're losing money to enter the market.
Just where do you think that money is coming from? Air?
Please! The law is very clear, even though appelate judges
might not be.

> >> ALL of the console makers effectively take a
> >> loss on the hardware in the hopes of making money off the software.
> >> Its how the market works.
> >
> >That may be true, but Gillette doesn't have a monopoly on
> >razor blades, so it can lose money on razors to build market
> >for its blades. HP doesn't have a monopoly on its inkjets,
> >so they can give the things away and make $1B on ink. M$
> >has monopoly power. Under US law they cannot use that
> >power.
>
> Try to lose your bias for a moment. MS are operating exactly the
> same model as any other console manufacturer - sell the hardware at a
> loss to make money off of licensing the games. Theres no leveraging
> of existing monopolies involved.

Bias? Sure, I have a bias. I *love* the free market! Win*
is anti-competative and a noose around the entire economy.
even though that noose had it's day.

You simply don't understand the word "leverage". There is
*nothing* illegal about a monopoly. However, when that
entity uses its muscle to go into another market (shifting
books is serious muscle) it is clearly illegal. If this
weren't so, Standard-Oil would own you. The law has its
purpose - to maintain a *competative* market.

> >That most *definitly* includes losing money to try to
> >move into other markets other markets.
>
> Utter rubbish. Losing money on the hardware is part of the
> business model of the console market .

Utter cluelessness! Once you cross the line into monopoly
status the rules change. If you want a comparison in the
same field, just ask IBM lawyers.

> Gee, maybe you could send your clueful insights to the DOJ. I'm
> sure they could use an intelligent guy like you to tell them how to do
> their jobs.

Wrong, Mr. Clueless. The DOJ is on the hunt (we'll see how
strong their stomach is). If you can remember a few months
back, the DOJ won the suit against M$.

----
Keith

Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 9:13:14 PM6/13/01
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:59:51, Paul Tiseo
<tiseo...@mayo.edu> wrote:

> In article <pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-G62dXWRdwQWm@localhost>, k...@attglobal.net
> says...
> > Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
> > person knew this forever) of being a monopoly.
>
> Until they win on appeal??? ;)

Or the DOJ loses interest. That happens with government
bodies, whether by politics or money (M$ can hire the
hot-shots - the government can't afford to keep).

However, M$ *deserves* te be spanked, and hard!

----
Keith

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 9:54:50 PM6/13/01
to
Yes...but the one thing you're forgetting is Dubba is the President......And
George is in the pockets of big business.....and I'll humbly suggest that it
will be cold day in hell if Microsoft is really brought to task under this
administration.


"Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pLMYl5dhX7hK-pn2-QNnkUifukbBH@localhost...

Anthony Hill

unread,
Jun 13, 2001, 11:31:44 PM6/13/01
to
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:27:08 +0200, Mike Noren
<mikemi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: Can you name a single type of application that doesn't exist in a
>: fairly stable and functional state?
>
>I think you misunderstood me - it doesn't matter if the type of
>application is represented, or even if the present instance is better
>than the Mac/Windows equivalent. What matters is that Joe Average Home
>User (JAHU) knows about and has used the Mac/Win equivalent. When he
>finds out that the apps he knows doesn't exist under linux, he's put
>off from using it, and telling him that "there's this shareware
>program..." doesn't cut it.
>
>Yes, it is a catch 22 situation, but there you are.

Ok, I understand what you're getting at now, and yes, it is very true.
People tend to get quite set in their ways when it comes to computers,
so, for example, if it ain't MS Office, its not going to work, even if
it does everything as well or better (perhaps a bad example though
since I haven't been too happy with any of the office packages in
Linux just yet, though KOffice is getting there).

>: There are a few areas where
>: Windows or Macs have slightly better support, and there are others
>: that Linux has better support for. For me, right now, Agent
>: Newsreader and games are the only things I do that I find are really
>: superior under Windows
>
>Games are quite important for home use. Would we have chipsets like
>Geforce3 or GHz processors otherwise?

Certainly they're important, though I'm not sure that this is what
Microsoft wants to convince people. Being known as the operating
system that people use when they want to play games, but then boot
into another operating system to get real work done can't be good for
a reputation. For me that was quickly where MS was going on the
desktop until Win2K came along.

>: I dunno, last time I talked to an OEM for support their suggest was
>: "Format and reinstall the operating system" :>
>
>Yep. The brute force approach to fixing problems caused by a crap file
>system...

1 part crap file system, 1 part stupid method of storing all
configuration data (the registry).

>: I'm not entirely convinced of that yet. WinXP does bring some nice
>: new features, but for the most part it looks to me to mainly be a
>: facelift for Win2K (which I do like BTW).
>
>I would agree with that, even though the multi-user capability isn't
>quite up to snuff IMO. However, it seems set to replace Win9X/ME,
>which certainly is a good thing. ME started the transition from DOS by
>disallowing booting into DOS (yes, there are patches, yes, DOS is
>still there), and under XP it's finally pretty much gone. Also
>replacing FAT32 with NTFS is a great leap for humanity, it's got a
>firewall, it is fast and it runs games. The downside is that it eats
>memory like a Mac (128MB is _not_ enough), basically all old system
>programs (Mother Board Manager, NVTweak, Rain...) cease to work, and
>to me the 'remote desktop' feature seems like a security hole the size
>of Texas.

Certainly when compared to Win9x it seems like it's moving forward in
some ways, but I'm having a tough time seeing what it offers over
Win2K. I know that Microsoft doesn't position Win2K as a "home
operating system", but that's what I've been using it as for over a
year now and I've been quite impressed with it. WinNT 4.0 never
really worked as a home operating system IMO (though I didn't mind it
as a work system), but in Win2K it runs all my applications just fine,
including games. Mind you, it does also have some security holes the
size of Texas. When I get a chance I'm probably going to throw my
Linux gateway/router/firewall in between me and my internet
connection, even though my home system is the only one on the network.
I'm just not convinced that the security of Windows is there. On a
similar note though, I think that the built-in firewall is the best
new feature I've heard mentioned with regards to WinXP, though I
remain a touch skeptical as to how it will perform, particularly in
relation to the current Linux ipchains firewall that I've got now.

>Hopefully some of the rough edges will be filed off before release - I
>mean, surely 128MB RAM should be enough to play MP3's in WinAmp and
>have Word open at the same time without the computer bogging down?

I'd certainly hope so! Sure, most new computers come with at least
128MB of memory, but I know a LOT of people who still have either 64
or even 32MB of memory in their systems, and WinXP just isn't an
option at all for them. Win2K wasn't exactly great in 64MB (actually
it's quite slow, that's all that my machine at work has and it
chunks), but 128MB made it run quite nicely.

-----------------------
Tony Hill
hi...@uoguelph.ca

Gav

unread,
Jun 14, 2001, 3:33:14 AM6/14/01
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:10:45 GMT, k...@attglobal.net (Keith R.
Williams) wrote:


>> >Clueless one: They've been found GUILTY (any reasonable
>> >person knew this forever) of being a monopoly. They cannot
>> >then use this income to support a losing scheme to take over
>> >other markets. This is sorta the definition of "leverage".
>>
>> Exactly HOW are they leveraging their position in the personal
>> computer market to gain advantage in the console market?
>
>Just what don't you understand by the term: LEVERAGE? They
>are obviously leveraging their Win* monopoly into the game
>space. Hint: They're losing money to enter the market.
>Just where do you think that money is coming from?

The money *will be coming from* game licensing fees. Thats the way
this market works.

If you're arguing they can't use money they already have to fund
their initial, then MS would never ever be able to expand its markets
- ever.

> Air?
>Please! The law is very clear, even though appelate judges
>might not be.

MSes Xbox intentions have been known for at least a year. If their
actions _were_ unfair we'd be hearing rumblings about it now.


[..]


>> Try to lose your bias for a moment. MS are operating exactly the
>> same model as any other console manufacturer - sell the hardware at a
>> loss to make money off of licensing the games. Theres no leveraging
>> of existing monopolies involved.
>
>Bias? Sure, I have a bias. I *love* the free market! Win*
>is anti-competative and a noose around the entire economy.
>even though that noose had it's day.
>
>You simply don't understand the word "leverage". There is
>*nothing* illegal about a monopoly. However, when that
>entity uses its muscle to go into another market (shifting
>books is serious muscle) it is clearly illegal. If this
>weren't so, Standard-Oil would own you. The law has its
>purpose - to maintain a *competative* market.

You simply can't understand how the console market works. MS are
doing nothing unusual in selling hardware at a loss IN THIS MARKET.

>> >That most *definitly* includes losing money to try to
>> >move into other markets other markets.
>>
>> Utter rubbish. Losing money on the hardware is part of the
>> business model of the console market .
>
>Utter cluelessness! Once you cross the line into monopoly
>status the rules change. If you want a comparison in the
>same field, just ask IBM lawyers.

OK genius, why then are MS going ahead with Xbox without so much as
a rumble of discontent from the DOJ or legal sources?

>
>> Gee, maybe you could send your clueful insights to the DOJ. I'm
>> sure they could use an intelligent guy like you to tell them how to do
>> their jobs.
>
>Wrong, Mr. Clueless. The DOJ is on the hunt (we'll see how
>strong their stomach is). If you can remember a few months
>back, the DOJ won the suit against M$.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 14, 2001, 9:55:05 AM6/14/01
to
Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:3b286792...@news.ubs.ch...

>
> The money *will be coming from* game licensing fees. Thats the way
> this market works.
>
> If you're arguing they can't use money they already have to fund
> their initial, then MS would never ever be able to expand its markets
> - ever.

Please, before arguing any further, please go learn something about U.S.
Anti-trust laws.

As Keith has said several times - Microsoft has been officially found to be
a monopoly. The rules change when one is a monopoly. You might not think
it is fair, and you might not like it, but it is the *law*.

The basic rule is that a monopoly cannot leverage it's monopoly power to
gain entry into another market. What that means is, it cannot
intentionally lose money in the new market by funding it with the money made
in the market it has a monopoly in.

The concept is that a monopoly has no competition, and therefore is
guaranteed a profit. They can then choose to take part or all of that
profit to hand out cheap (or free) items in a new market until such time
that all competitors are driven out. At that point, they can raise the
price to whatever they want in both markets.

Keith mentioned Standard Oil. These laws came into existence for a reason,
a bit over 100 years ago, IIRC...

>
> MSes Xbox intentions have been known for at least a year. If their
> actions _were_ unfair we'd be hearing rumblings about it now.

The DOJ must bring the charges. It took *years* before they did it WRT the
IE 'bundling' and other issues.

>
> You simply can't understand how the console market works. MS are
> doing nothing unusual in selling hardware at a loss IN THIS MARKET.

What Keith is saying is that the rules are different for a monopoly. It
doesn't matter what anyone else does because they are not a monopoly, and
therefore play by a different set of rules.

I believe Keith has a bit of experience in this area, so unless you have
some expertise here that you can share, I suggest you do a little more
research. I also questioned the issue of whether the actions of existing
players makes a difference, but I'm not going to argue the point because I
don't know for sure...

> >> >That most *definitly* includes losing money to try to
> >> >move into other markets other markets.
> >>
> >> Utter rubbish. Losing money on the hardware is part of the
> >> business model of the console market .
> >
> >Utter cluelessness! Once you cross the line into monopoly
> >status the rules change. If you want a comparison in the
> >same field, just ask IBM lawyers.
>
> OK genius, why then are MS going ahead with Xbox without so much as
> a rumble of discontent from the DOJ or legal sources?

MS has to actually *do* it before they can be taken to court. Even then,
it takes a long time for the DOJ to get their act together - *if* they
decide to do it. Note that the decision is as much political as it is
legal, since the DOJ is part of the Executive branch - not the Judicial!

Regards,
Dean

Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 2:48:51 AM6/15/01
to
Replying to "Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> :

: Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in


: message news:3b286792...@news.ubs.ch...
: >
: > The money *will be coming from* game licensing fees. Thats the way
: > this market works.
: >
: > If you're arguing they can't use money they already have to fund
: > their initial, then MS would never ever be able to expand its markets
: > - ever.
:
: Please, before arguing any further, please go learn something about U.S.
: Anti-trust laws.
:
: As Keith has said several times - Microsoft has been officially found to be
: a monopoly. The rules change when one is a monopoly. You might not think
: it is fair, and you might not like it, but it is the *law*.
:
: The basic rule is that a monopoly cannot leverage it's monopoly power to
: gain entry into another market.

What you're missing here is that selling the console and obtaining
money from the licenses aren't "another market". It would be illegal
if Microsoft, after the initial investments to get the company going,
continued to subsidise the console company (which is a separate
daughter company) so that it didn't have to carry its own costs.

This is not the case. The console daughter company will get both the
reveneues from the sales of the hardware and from the licenses, and
those two sources combined will have to carry the company.

Gav

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 3:01:27 AM6/15/01
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 06:55:05 -0700, "Dean Kent"
<dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
>message news:3b286792...@news.ubs.ch...
>>
>> The money *will be coming from* game licensing fees. Thats the way
>> this market works.
>>
>> If you're arguing they can't use money they already have to fund
>> their initial, then MS would never ever be able to expand its markets
>> - ever.
>
>Please, before arguing any further, please go learn something about U.S.
>Anti-trust laws.

Tell you what - enlighten me. If this is a *clear* anti-trust
breach as you are inferring, it should be easy for you to point out
why.

MS aren't setting out to destroy a market with subsidised boxes -
they are about to enter a market where the 'subsidised box' model is
the norm.

>As Keith has said several times - Microsoft has been officially found to be
>a monopoly. The rules change when one is a monopoly. You might not think
>it is fair, and you might not like it, but it is the *law*.
>
>The basic rule is that a monopoly cannot leverage it's monopoly power to
>gain entry into another market. What that means is, it cannot
>intentionally lose money in the new market by funding it with the money made
>in the market it has a monopoly in.

The key here is "intentionally lose money". It is most certainly
*NOT* MSes intention to lose money in the console market. The point
of subsidising the consoles is to make money from the game licensing
fees. All the console makers do it, its the model upon which that
market is based.


>The concept is that a monopoly has no competition, and therefore is
>guaranteed a profit. They can then choose to take part or all of that
>profit to hand out cheap (or free) items in a new market until such time
>that all competitors are driven out. At that point, they can raise the
>price to whatever they want in both markets.

Puh-lease. Where do you think Sony and Nintendo got the money to
subsidise THEIR below-cost consoles from, when they were establishing
a hardware base?

This isn't a case of MS suddenly dropping a below cost box into a
market where such a thing is unknown - virtually all the competitors
in this marketspace do it. Its certainly been a very successful
technique for Sony over the last five or six years.

>Keith mentioned Standard Oil. These laws came into existence for a reason,
>a bit over 100 years ago, IIRC...
>
>>
>> MSes Xbox intentions have been known for at least a year. If their
>> actions _were_ unfair we'd be hearing rumblings about it now.
>
>The DOJ must bring the charges. It took *years* before they did it WRT the
>IE 'bundling' and other issues.

We'd still be hearing very loud rumblings of disquiet about it in
the press, given the earlier DOJ ruling.

Where are all the knowledgable legal sources pointing out the
potential anti-trust breach, in the media? I sure don't see any.
Given the market importance of MS I'd say that there would be plenty
of concerned parties (not least shareholders) if MS were about to make
a blatant anti-trust breach with the Xbox.


>> You simply can't understand how the console market works. MS are
>> doing nothing unusual in selling hardware at a loss IN THIS MARKET.
>
>What Keith is saying is that the rules are different for a monopoly. It
>doesn't matter what anyone else does because they are not a monopoly, and
>therefore play by a different set of rules.
>
>I believe Keith has a bit of experience in this area, so unless you have
>some expertise here that you can share, I suggest you do a little more
>research.

I'm doing the same thing as you and Keith - expressing my opinion
on the issue. AFAIK none of us are anti-trust experts so I don't see
why I should be expected to provide any higher levels of proof of
research than you or anyone else when putting my opinions forward.

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 4:04:15 AM6/15/01
to
Mike Noren <mikemi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:kmbjit88o8db4cn28...@4ax.com...

>
> What you're missing here is that selling the console and obtaining
> money from the licenses aren't "another market". It would be illegal
> if Microsoft, after the initial investments to get the company going,
> continued to subsidise the console company (which is a separate
> daughter company) so that it didn't have to carry its own costs.
>
> This is not the case. The console daughter company will get both the
> reveneues from the sales of the hardware and from the licenses, and
> those two sources combined will have to carry the company.

If this new company has a separate board of directors and shareholders, then
this would be true. It would, however, not be Microsoft. As long as the
name of the company is Microsoft, regardless of whether it is a division of
or not, then it is subject to the same anti-trust laws, as far as I can
determine...

Regards,
Dean

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 4:18:31 AM6/15/01
to
Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:3b29ae23...@news.ubs.ch...

>
> Tell you what - enlighten me. If this is a *clear* anti-trust
> breach as you are inferring, it should be easy for you to point out
> why.

Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly in a court of law. The moment
this ruling was made, the rules changed for MS.

Few things in law are a *clear* breach, which is why we have courts. If
you are implying that every violation of the law is prosecuted, then you
have led a very sheltered life...

>
> MS aren't setting out to destroy a market with subsidised boxes -
> they are about to enter a market where the 'subsidised box' model is
> the norm.
>

What Keith has said is that this does not matter. Microsoft *is* a
monopoly, and cannot use the money and market power gained as a monopoly to
enter a new market and intentionally lose money. While I am not fully
convinced that this is the case, I am also not sufficiently knowledgable in
anti-trust laws to state that it is false, and I haven't seen anything from
you that convinces me you have the knowledge either... but perhaps I have
simply not seen your evidence?

>
> The key here is "intentionally lose money". It is most certainly
> *NOT* MSes intention to lose money in the console market. The point
> of subsidising the consoles is to make money from the game licensing
> fees. All the console makers do it, its the model upon which that
> market is based.
>

While I personally think that this might be the case, I don't know enough
about the laws to know for sure whether this is true, and I haven't seen any
evidence that you have the knowledge either. Keith is stating that as a
monopoly, it is illegal for MS to intentionally lose money on any part of
the product...

>
>
> Puh-lease. Where do you think Sony and Nintendo got the money to
> subsidise THEIR below-cost consoles from, when they were establishing
> a hardware base?

Have Sony or Nintendo been found to be a monopoly in a court of law?
Perhaps you are missing an important point here?

>
> This isn't a case of MS suddenly dropping a below cost box into a
> market where such a thing is unknown - virtually all the competitors
> in this marketspace do it. Its certainly been a very successful
> technique for Sony over the last five or six years.

It may not matter what Sony has been doing, as Sony is not considered a
monopoly, while MS is. This could make *all* the difference (though I
don't know enough to state whether that is a fact or not).

> >
> >The DOJ must bring the charges. It took *years* before they did it WRT
the
> >IE 'bundling' and other issues.
>
> We'd still be hearing very loud rumblings of disquiet about it in
> the press, given the earlier DOJ ruling.

You state this as if it is an absolute certainty. Are you saying that any
actions that the DOJ is pondering or possibly considering are public
knowledge?

>
> Where are all the knowledgable legal sources pointing out the
> potential anti-trust breach, in the media? I sure don't see any.
> Given the market importance of MS I'd say that there would be plenty
> of concerned parties (not least shareholders) if MS were about to make
> a blatant anti-trust breach with the Xbox.

I think you give too much credit to the media. I would certainly expect
Sony or Nintendo to be bringing up issues, but who is to say that they have
not privately contacted the DOJ?

Your argument seems to be that if someone is not prosecuted, they are
innocent whereas Keith is saying that they simply have not been found
guilty...

>
> I'm doing the same thing as you and Keith - expressing my opinion
> on the issue. AFAIK none of us are anti-trust experts so I don't see
> why I should be expected to provide any higher levels of proof of
> research than you or anyone else when putting my opinions forward.

What I have stated is that you cannot say for certain that MS is *not*
violating anti-trust laws. This is quite different than saying that they
definitely have or have not....

Keith will have to defend his own statements, I'm afraid. :-).

Regards,
Dean

Matt

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 4:30:47 AM6/15/01
to

"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:EyjW6.3$Um3...@eagle.america.net...

> Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
> message news:3b29ae23...@news.ubs.ch...
> > MS aren't setting out to destroy a market with subsidised boxes -
> > they are about to enter a market where the 'subsidised box' model is
> > the norm.
> >
>
> What Keith has said is that this does not matter. Microsoft *is* a
> monopoly, and cannot use the money and market power gained as a monopoly to
> enter a new market and intentionally lose money.

Well there you go.. MS is not going to intentionally lose money in the console
_market_. They are going to profit in that market.
You guys seem to be mixing up "selling the box for a loss" with "intentionally
losing money in the _market_."
The console market is based on selling the box for a loss but making up the
difference in game sales. That difference comes from third party licensing and/or
the sales of in house developed games. MS will be getting money from both. There
is also money to be made from the accesories. You can bet the MS Hardware division
will be cranking out plenty of X-Box controllers and add-ons.

Gav

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 7:27:22 AM6/15/01
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:18:31 -0700, "Dean Kent"
<dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>Gav <gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid> wrote in
>message news:3b29ae23...@news.ubs.ch...
>>
>> Tell you what - enlighten me. If this is a *clear* anti-trust
>> breach as you are inferring, it should be easy for you to point out
>> why.
>
>Microsoft has been ruled to be a monopoly in a court of law. The moment
>this ruling was made, the rules changed for MS.

Cite the specific rule(s) that would apply in the case of MS
entering the console market - a market where the business model is
'razor blade markettting' where you basically 'give away' one
component (the console) in order to make money from consumables (the
games).

>Few things in law are a *clear* breach, which is why we have courts. If
>you are implying that every violation of the law is prosecuted, then you
>have led a very sheltered life...

When did I imply this? I merely asked you to cite the legislation
that makes this a clear anti-trust breach as you are asserting.

>> MS aren't setting out to destroy a market with subsidised boxes -
>> they are about to enter a market where the 'subsidised box' model is
>> the norm.
>>
>
>What Keith has said is that this does not matter. Microsoft *is* a
>monopoly, and cannot use the money and market power gained as a monopoly to
>enter a new market and intentionally lose money. While I am not fully
>convinced that this is the case, I am also not sufficiently knowledgable in
>anti-trust laws to state that it is false, and I haven't seen anything from
>you that convinces me you have the knowledge either... but perhaps I have
>simply not seen your evidence?

As I've noted, we're both offering opinions. Keith gave his view,
I've given my view and my opinions of why he was wrong, you've
asserted my views are wrong but you certainly can't provide any hard
evidence as to why they would be.

>> The key here is "intentionally lose money". It is most certainly
>> *NOT* MSes intention to lose money in the console market. The point
>> of subsidising the consoles is to make money from the game licensing
>> fees. All the console makers do it, its the model upon which that
>> market is based.
>>
>
>While I personally think that this might be the case, I don't know enough
>about the laws to know for sure whether this is true, and I haven't seen any
>evidence that you have the knowledge either. Keith is stating that as a
>monopoly, it is illegal for MS to intentionally lose money on any part of
>the product...

And I'm stating that given the nature of the console market (Razor
Blade Marketting) its not.

Yet *I* have to provide evidence and you don't? You don't even
appear to have read, or have a pointer to, the part of the
legislation which you frequently cite as being violated.

>> Puh-lease. Where do you think Sony and Nintendo got the money to
>> subsidise THEIR below-cost consoles from, when they were establishing
>> a hardware base?
>
>Have Sony or Nintendo been found to be a monopoly in a court of law?
>Perhaps you are missing an important point here?

Perhaps you can produce the relevent part(s) of the legislation
upon which you are basing your claims........?

>> This isn't a case of MS suddenly dropping a below cost box into a
>> market where such a thing is unknown - virtually all the competitors
>> in this marketspace do it. Its certainly been a very successful
>> technique for Sony over the last five or six years.
>
>It may not matter what Sony has been doing, as Sony is not considered a
>monopoly, while MS is. This could make *all* the difference (though I
>don't know enough to state whether that is a fact or not).

So you'vre read the anti-trust legislation then? Lets see the parts
you allege are being violated.......


>
>> >
>> >The DOJ must bring the charges. It took *years* before they did it WRT
>the
>> >IE 'bundling' and other issues.
>>
>> We'd still be hearing very loud rumblings of disquiet about it in
>> the press, given the earlier DOJ ruling.
>
>You state this as if it is an absolute certainty.

If MS were about to make a clear antitrust breach as you allege,
it IS a **certainty** that the tech media would be full of stories
quoting legal experts views on the matter.

> Are you saying that any
>actions that the DOJ is pondering or possibly considering are public
>knowledge?

You're claiming MS are about to breach specific anti-trust laws
(which you can't specify and so far haven't provided pointers to).
I'm calling upon you to actually point out which laws they ARE
breaching, rather than handwaving.

Nothing to do with predicting what the DOJ might or might not do.

>> Where are all the knowledgable legal sources pointing out the
>> potential anti-trust breach, in the media? I sure don't see any.
>> Given the market importance of MS I'd say that there would be plenty
>> of concerned parties (not least shareholders) if MS were about to make
>> a blatant anti-trust breach with the Xbox.
>
>I think you give too much credit to the media.

I'd expect them to highlight a clear antitrust violation (if it
existed) considering the backdrop of the hugely publicised MS vs DOJ
antitrust case.......

> I would certainly expect
>Sony or Nintendo to be bringing up issues, but who is to say that they have
>not privately contacted the DOJ?

Stop dodging and speculating about what might be happening behind
the scenes - You're alleging specific breaches. Lets see what
sections they are breaching. Or are you just handwaving?

>Your argument seems to be that if someone is not prosecuted, they are
>innocent whereas Keith is saying that they simply have not been found
>guilty...

My argument is "Where is the specific legislation you are alleging
MS are breaking. Have you even READ it? Why hasven't anyone in the
media picked up upon what you are alleging is a clear antitrust
issue."


>> I'm doing the same thing as you and Keith - expressing my opinion
>> on the issue. AFAIK none of us are anti-trust experts so I don't see
>> why I should be expected to provide any higher levels of proof of
>> research than you or anyone else when putting my opinions forward.
>
>What I have stated is that you cannot say for certain that MS is *not*
>violating anti-trust laws.

You OTOH are pretty much claiming they have. I'm saying how I'm
reading the situation, you keep asserting that I'm wrong by citing
'antitrust laws' which its becoming increasingly clear you haven't
even read.

> This is quite different than saying that they
>definitely have or have not....

Keith said they had. I've said I don't believe they have. I'm
still waiting for the evidence of the original assertion, made by
Keith and backup up by you, that MS have somehow broken part of
parts of the legislation


>Keith will have to defend his own statements, I'm afraid. :-).

You seem to be hellbent on doing it for him - or just like picking
arguments.

Gav

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 7:28:28 AM6/15/01
to


MS are also apparently planning to make money off of licensing the
sale of third party add-ons.

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 10:38:32 AM6/15/01
to

Matt <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:XIjW6.175555$p33.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...

>
>
> Well there you go.. MS is not going to intentionally lose money in the
console
> _market_. They are going to profit in that market.
> You guys seem to be mixing up "selling the box for a loss" with
"intentionally
> losing money in the _market_."
> The console market is based on selling the box for a loss but making up
the
> difference in game sales. That difference comes from third party
licensing and/or
> the sales of in house developed games. MS will be getting money from
both. There
> is also money to be made from the accesories. You can bet the MS Hardware
division
> will be cranking out plenty of X-Box controllers and add-ons.
>

Question: How soon will MS actually make money on this? If they enter the
market, and lose money the first quarter - have they violated anti-trust
laws, even if the 'plan' on making money the next? How about if they
lose money the first month, or the first day?

Not being an expert in anti-trust laws, I can't say whether any of these is
a violation - however, as has been stated, the rules are different for a
monopoly. You cannot necessarily claim that it is OK for MS to do what
another company already does in the market. A monopoly is restricted from
doing certain things that a non-monopoly can do (or may already do). I
don't know exactly what those things might be, and I don't think most in
this group do (any lawyers reading who are familiar with these things?). I
am sure that, as with most things of this nature, it is not really
cut-and-dried either way...

Regards,
Dean


>
>
>
>


Courageous

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 12:26:11 PM6/15/01
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:01:27 GMT, gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid
(Gav) wrote:

> MS aren't setting out to destroy a market with subsidised boxes -
>they are about to enter a market where the 'subsidised box' model is
>the norm.

And in fact, they couldn't even enter the market without the subsidized
box, is that is the modus noire of the marketplace.

C//

Matt

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 12:33:22 PM6/15/01
to

"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:i9pW6.41$Um3....@eagle.america.net...

>
> Matt <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
> news:XIjW6.175555$p33.3...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> >
> >
> > Well there you go.. MS is not going to intentionally lose money in the
> console
> > _market_. They are going to profit in that market.
> > You guys seem to be mixing up "selling the box for a loss" with
> "intentionally
> > losing money in the _market_."
> > The console market is based on selling the box for a loss but making up
> the
> > difference in game sales. That difference comes from third party
> licensing and/or
> > the sales of in house developed games. MS will be getting money from
> both. There
> > is also money to be made from the accesories. You can bet the MS Hardware
> division
> > will be cranking out plenty of X-Box controllers and add-ons.
> >
>
> Question: How soon will MS actually make money on this? If they enter the
> market, and lose money the first quarter - have they violated anti-trust
> laws, even if the 'plan' on making money the next? How about if they
> lose money the first month, or the first day?

They will most likely lose money for about a year. I seriously doubt it would be
seen as any violation since that is the normal course of action in the existing
console market model. Thats just the way the market works.
Now if it weren't that way, their console probably wouldnt be on the market for a
week before Sony and Nintendo raised hell.


Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 1:52:27 PM6/15/01
to
Monopoly has two elements:
1 Posession of monopoly power in the relevant market;

2 The willful acquision or maintenence of that power as distinguished from
*growth or development as a consequence of superior product, business,
acumen, or historical accident*.
384 U.S. 563, 570-71

Both these elements must be proven......The second element is the one that
will ultimately cause the DOJ's case against Microsoft to fail. But then,
you get the right judge and naything's possible.


"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message

news:i9pW6.41$Um3....@eagle.america.net...

Felger Carbon

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 2:17:07 PM6/15/01
to
Dean Kent <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:i9pW6.41$Um3....@eagle.america.net...

>
> Not being an expert in anti-trust laws

I don't think anybody who posts to this group knows much about antitrust
laws. However, MS is a big company. Do you suppose they have a lawyer or
five on their staff who _does_ understand the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?


> I am sure that, as with most things of this nature,
> it is not really cut-and-dried either way...

Do you suppose that it makes a difference now that we have Republicans
running the DOJ? ;-)

Courageous

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 6:05:35 PM6/15/01
to

>2 The willful acquision or maintenence ...

>Both these elements must be proven......The second element is the one that
>will ultimately cause the DOJ's case against Microsoft to fail.

Given that the executive-level corporate culture has an endemic
culture of willfully flouting of these sorts of laws, I doubt it.
Microsoft had ample warning for years that tying arrangements
were inappropriate, and yet it continued with them without regard
to the rules of fair and acceptible business conduct. The judge's
final assessment that a structural remedy was the only reasonable
alternative was influenced significantly by such sentiment. And
that sentiment is correct.

Mr. Gates simply doesn't *agree* with U.S. Anti Trust Law. It should
therefore come as no surprise that he and his appointees disregard
it so readily.

C//

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 9:22:53 PM6/15/01
to

"Courageous" <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vr1lits7kvve1lkb8...@4ax.com...

C//

You may be correct.....However, given the climate in Washington,
I submit that it will be some time if ever before Microsoft is *ordered* by
any US court to split its OS and applications units.
Furthermore, and this is the most repugnant part to me, the
whole ball got rolling because Microsoft's competetors got jumpy......and
they screamed......and the Media got ahold of it.....and certain individuals
in the Government thought," Well, here's an opportunity to get some
publicity...this seems politically correct." And it's always that
way....always has been...always will be....And to hell with what's right or
what's good.
It appears that the Government is afraid of
Microsoft.....Microsoft is everywhere....On our computers, on our TV
screens, piping our e-mail all over the world, and soon our kids will be
'Quaking' 'em on a Microsoft box in the bedroom.
I really think this whole situation has very little to do with
Monopoly and much more to do with our culture. I think that in many ways,
Gates is correct when he says that Microsoft is all about innovation just
like any other successful company. Remember, *we* chose to rely on
computers, continued to demand improvements in OS technology by demanding
applications that would do more and faster. How can we condem Gates for
meeting our demands. Has he gone about it illegally? We'll see what
happens

Pete Ulrich


Courageous

unread,
Jun 16, 2001, 12:25:48 AM6/16/01
to

>> Given that the executive-level corporate culture has an endemic
>> culture of willfully flouting of these sorts of laws, I doubt it.
>> Microsoft had ample warning for years that...

> You may be correct.....However, given the climate in Washington,
>I submit that it will be some time if ever before Microsoft is *ordered* by
>any US court to split its OS and applications units.

Oh, I can believe that, I was only arguing with your reasoning, not your
conclusions. You could very well be right.

> Furthermore, and this is the most repugnant part to me, the
>whole ball got rolling because Microsoft's competetors got jumpy......and
>they screamed......and the Media got ahold of it.....and certain individuals
>in the Government thought," Well, here's an opportunity to get some
>publicity...this seems politically correct." And it's always that
>way....always has been...always will be....And to hell with what's right or
>what's good.

It's often the case that the screaming of the victim brings those who
would paint themselves as heros. As you say, a very old phenomenon.

> I really think this whole situation has very little to do with
>Monopoly and much more to do with our culture. I think that in many ways,
>Gates is correct when he says that Microsoft is all about innovation just
>like any other successful company. Remember, *we* chose to rely on
>computers, continued to demand improvements in OS technology by demanding
>applications that would do more and faster. How can we condem Gates for
>meeting our demands. Has he gone about it illegally?

Yes, he has. This has been discussed to death. Once a company
dominates a market the way that Microsoft does, it's held to different
standards of conducts than companies which don't have that market
dominance. That's the law, and Microsoft broke it, willfully flouted it,
flagrantly disregarded it. Hell, individuals involved in the case even
*perjured* themselves in court. There was a reason that Penfield
cracked the way he did. He was very, very angry. For a reason.

He should have played it differently, however. The media remarks
post-case were ill-advised; the better move in expressing his anger
would have been immediate jail time in response to the whole "pass
off a simulation as the real thing" perjury incident. He should have
immediately ordered every involved in the whole affair into court
and sent them trucking to a jail cell for 30 days. On the spot.

C//

Dean Kent

unread,
Jun 15, 2001, 9:41:37 PM6/15/01
to
Pete Ulrich <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote in message
news:3b2a...@news.netnitco.net...

> >
>
> You may be correct.....However, given the climate in Washington,
> I submit that it will be some time if ever before Microsoft is *ordered*
by
> any US court to split its OS and applications units.

First, you need to recognize that the judicial branch is not connected to
the executive branch. The DOJ is the prosecution arm of the executive
branch, but now that MS has already been proven to be 'guilty', it is the
judicial branch that has control.

Therefore, the question is not whether the courts will order it, it is how
diligently the DOJ persues it in appeal...

> Furthermore, and this is the most repugnant part to me, the
> whole ball got rolling because Microsoft's competetors got jumpy......and
> they screamed......and the Media got ahold of it.....and certain
individuals
> in the Government thought," Well, here's an opportunity to get some
> publicity...this seems politically correct." And it's always that
> way....always has been...always will be....And to hell with what's right
or
> what's good.

The DOJ had been collecting information for *years*. Remember, the IBM
trial went on for something like 13 years...

> It appears that the Government is afraid of
> Microsoft.....Microsoft is everywhere....On our computers, on our TV
> screens, piping our e-mail all over the world, and soon our kids will be
> 'Quaking' 'em on a Microsoft box in the bedroom.

I personally believe that is BS. What happened was that the DOJ went to
Intel and MS and told them "here are the rules". Intel either negotiated
with due deference to the DOJ, or just agreed to the terms - and the case
was dropped. MS, in their arrogance, said "Up yours". As soon as that
happened, I told a colleague "The DOJ will not stop until they have gotten
MS to capitulate, or the case is settled in court". You just don't tell
the government (*any* government) that they can just go to hell, and expect
nothing to be done about it.

> I really think this whole situation has very little to do with
> Monopoly and much more to do with our culture. I think that in many ways,
> Gates is correct when he says that Microsoft is all about innovation just
> like any other successful company. Remember, *we* chose to rely on
> computers, continued to demand improvements in OS technology by demanding
> applications that would do more and faster. How can we condem Gates for
> meeting our demands. Has he gone about it illegally? We'll see what
> happens

I think you are unaware of the facts of the situation. MS has definitely
used their market power to force 'partners' and competitors into positions
that benefit MS. So has Intel, but Intel was much smarter in dealing with
the government, IMO.

Regards,
Dean

>
> Pete Ulrich
>
>


Courageous

unread,
Jun 16, 2001, 1:12:36 AM6/16/01
to

>I think you are unaware of the facts of the situation. MS has definitely
>used their market power to force 'partners' and competitors into positions
>that benefit MS. So has Intel, but Intel was much smarter in dealing with
>the government, IMO.

Intel and Microsoft both have or have had monopoly power in their
respective marketplaces from time to time. One big difference in the
two companies is that, at Intel, the corporate culture at the executive
level involves careful consideration involving moves which may be
perceived as an abuse of the power that they have. At Microsoft,
however, they could give a rats ass about the whole thing. Intel is
much more careful and cognizant of the laws and public perception
than Microsoft is in this regard. Hence the outcome.

Conversely, Microsoft has willfully flouted the law and come perilously
close to taunting the government. Its willful disobediance and brazen
arrogance will some day be its downfall if the market doesn't get 'em
first. Which could very well happen; markets are like that.

C//

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 16, 2001, 2:33:05 AM6/16/01
to

"Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:xyBW6.269$Um3....@eagle.america.net...

> Pete Ulrich <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote in message
> news:3b2a...@news.netnitco.net...
> > >
> >
> > You may be correct.....However, given the climate in
Washington,
> > I submit that it will be some time if ever before Microsoft is *ordered*
> by
> > any US court to split its OS and applications units.
>
> First, you need to recognize that the judicial branch is not connected to
> the executive branch. The DOJ is the prosecution arm of the executive
> branch, but now that MS has already been proven to be 'guilty', it is the
> judicial branch that has control.
>
> Therefore, the question is not whether the courts will order it, it is how
> diligently the DOJ persues it in appeal...

Exactly....and since the courts can do nothing unless the Government pursues
the matter, I suggest not much will happen. I think that John Ashcroft will
certainly give lip service, but that's about as far as it will go for the
forseeable future. Bush and Cheney are, as you know, very pro business.

> > Furthermore, and this is the most repugnant part to me, the
> > whole ball got rolling because Microsoft's competetors got
jumpy......and
> > they screamed......and the Media got ahold of it.....and certain
> individuals
> > in the Government thought," Well, here's an opportunity to get some
> > publicity...this seems politically correct." And it's always that
> > way....always has been...always will be....And to hell with what's right
> or
> > what's good.
>
> The DOJ had been collecting information for *years*. Remember, the IBM
> trial went on for something like 13 years...

Yes.....but it has only come to a head over the past 3 or 4 years....You
know that Microsoft has been producing the OS of choice since they cloned
Apples GUI with Win 3.x.. Apple had a much better OS in those days yet
Microsoft Windows dominates today. This evolution and market shift was
occuring in plain view of everyone including the DOJ and yet nothing
happened. Why....because nobody with any clout was screaming.


> > It appears that the Government is afraid of
> > Microsoft.....Microsoft is everywhere....On our computers, on our TV
> > screens, piping our e-mail all over the world, and soon our kids will
be
> > 'Quaking' 'em on a Microsoft box in the bedroom.
>
> I personally believe that is BS. What happened was that the DOJ went to
> Intel and MS and told them "here are the rules". Intel either negotiated
> with due deference to the DOJ, or just agreed to the terms - and the case
> was dropped. MS, in their arrogance, said "Up yours". As soon as that
> happened, I told a colleague "The DOJ will not stop until they have gotten
> MS to capitulate, or the case is settled in court". You just don't tell
> the government (*any* government) that they can just go to hell, and
expect
> nothing to be done about it.

I think it's clear that Gates and company handled the situation
poorly....and the old adage that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'
certainly may apply to Gates in terms of his 'up yours' attitude. And there
is no doubt that there was a 'wintel' optimizing product in order to
produce the best available. It is also well established that Microsoft and
Intel were extremely heavy handed with OEMs, dictating what they could and
couldn't do. But look what has happened....AMD has deeply cut into Intel's
business...and Microsoft has had to cooperate with AMD. It wasn't
government action that caused these changes....it was hard work and
innovation. And although in its formative stages, Linix is evolving. I
really don't see how anyone can claim that Microsoft or Intel are
deliberately controling and manipulating the market under these
circumstances.

> > I really think this whole situation has very little to do
with
> > Monopoly and much more to do with our culture. I think that in many
ways,
> > Gates is correct when he says that Microsoft is all about innovation
just
> > like any other successful company. Remember, *we* chose to rely on
> > computers, continued to demand improvements in OS technology by
demanding
> > applications that would do more and faster. How can we condem Gates for
> > meeting our demands. Has he gone about it illegally? We'll see what
> > happens
>
> I think you are unaware of the facts of the situation. MS has definitely
> used their market power to force 'partners' and competitors into positions
> that benefit MS. So has Intel, but Intel was much smarter in dealing with
> the government, IMO.

Yes....there is no doubt about the heavy handedness of both Microsoft and
Intel. And it may be that the case brought by DOJ has altered the
situation, causing both Microsoft and Intel to tread more carefully.
However, I am concerned that personal pride and power politics on the part
of both Microsoft and the Government might chill the spirit of innovation
that has produced the technology from which we derive so many benefits.


> > Pete Ulrich
> >
> > > >
> >
>
>


Keith R. Williams

unread,
Jun 16, 2001, 2:05:38 PM6/16/01
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 06:33:05, "Pete Ulrich"
<pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote:

>
> "Dean Kent" <dk...@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
> news:xyBW6.269$Um3....@eagle.america.net...
> > Pete Ulrich <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b2a...@news.netnitco.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > You may be correct.....However, given the climate in
> Washington,
> > > I submit that it will be some time if ever before Microsoft is *ordered*
> > by
> > > any US court to split its OS and applications units.
> >
> > First, you need to recognize that the judicial branch is not connected to
> > the executive branch. The DOJ is the prosecution arm of the executive
> > branch, but now that MS has already been proven to be 'guilty', it is the
> > judicial branch that has control.
> >
> > Therefore, the question is not whether the courts will order it, it is how
> > diligently the DOJ persues it in appeal...
>
> Exactly....and since the courts can do nothing unless the Government pursues
> the matter, I suggest not much will happen. I think that John Ashcroft will
> certainly give lip service, but that's about as far as it will go for the
> forseeable future. Bush and Cheney are, as you know, very pro business.

..or another corporation with some cash and an eye on
trebble dammages. It doesn't *have* to be the government,
though they are the only ones with pockets deeper than
WillyG.

----
Keith


Coridon Henshaw

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 10:19:14 PM6/21/01
to
"Pete Ulrich" <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote in
news:3b2a...@news.netnitco.net:

> And although in its formative stages, Linix is evolving. I really
> don't see how anyone can claim that Microsoft or Intel are deliberately
> controling and manipulating the market under these circumstances.

Until the computing public can buy any PC from any brand without being
*forced* to buy a copy of Windows, Microsoft is controlling the market.
Period.

--
Coridon Henshaw -- http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh
"..To expect a good deal from life is puerile." -- D.H. Lawrence

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 10:41:08 PM6/21/01
to
Well taken.....except that no one *has* to buy a copy of Windows with his
new computer. And if a vendor insists that windows must come with the
package, find another vendor. The point is that there are alternatives for
*those who want them.* Under these circumstances, usually called a free
market, Microsoft can not be *in control* of the market.
It's like saying BP is a monopoly because it sells the most gas.....

Pete Ulrich


"The greatest invention was the thermos bottle.....Keeps hot things hot and
cold things cold --- But how does it know?"

"Coridon Henshaw" <"chenshaw?????????????? wrote in message
news:Xns90C7E3CF2...@207.35.177.134...

Coridon Henshaw

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 10:57:23 PM6/21/01
to
"Pete Ulrich" <pmul...@netnitco.net> wrote in
news:3b32...@news.netnitco.net:

> Well taken.....except that no one *has* to buy a copy of Windows with
> his new computer. And if a vendor insists that windows must come with
> the package, find another vendor.

That's my point. It frequently isn't possible to find another vendor.

I'm in the market for a laptop. None of the big vendors will sell me a
machine without Windows. Heck, Dell won't even sell me a laptop unless I
pay for both MS Works and MS Windows. Saying that I 'have a choice' to buy
hardware from a minor brand that doesn't engage in tying at the cost of
half the battery life and one quarter the reliability is a bit like saying
that paying protection money to the mob is optional because there is
'another option': to wind up six feet under. Like protection money, the
Microsoft Tax is coersive and incompatible with the concept of a free
market.

Pete Ulrich

unread,
Jun 21, 2001, 11:34:15 PM6/21/01
to
Have you tried Gateway.......They have always been very flexable. Another
option is to use a local shop, not a 'Computer Universe' type place, but a
'mom n' pop operation. These people will usually bend over backwards to
help.
And does Apple make a laptop? I don't Know. PowerBook?
Don't get me wrong....I understand exactly what you are saying. Lets face
it, if I don't want an internal combustion engine in my car, I have to get
out of the mainstream to satisfy myself.

Pete Ulrich.

"Coridon Henshaw" <"chenshaw?????????????? wrote in message

news:Xns90C7EA471...@207.35.177.134...

Coridon Henshaw

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 2:41:58 AM6/22/01
to

> Have you tried Gateway.......They have always been very flexable.

Yep. Gateway is just like Dell: Works and Windows are required components.

(Gateway's worse in one area, too, in that some configurations require a
DVD drive--and DVD something I'm not going to touch unless I can find a DVD
rewriter which was either manufactured in violation of DVD-CCA requirements
or is incapable of reading video disks.)

> Another option is to use a local shop, not a 'Computer Universe' type
> place, but a 'mom n' pop operation. These people will usually bend
> over backwards to help.

Around here, most of the independant stores would prefer that would-be
customers dropped dead rather than asked for any kind of service. Even if
a suitable vendor was available, I'm right back to the problem I mentioned
earlier: minor brands generally have worse performance and worse battery
life than the big players.

> And does Apple make a laptop? I don't Know. PowerBook?

The only way I'm switching to Mac is if Linux craters and the only
alternative is a Microsoft rental operating system.

I don't particularly mind paying for Microsoft OSes; I don't like being
forced into a situation where I must pay--in effect donate--money to MS (or
anyone else) for a product that I didn't ask for and won't use. On the
other hand, XP's activation scheme and .NET are just signs of a monopoly
abusing its powers.

Incidentally, XP's activation scheme has a very nasty problem that hasn't
been mentioned in the usual media: even though MS 'promises' to allow XP to
be reinstalled indefinitely on the same hardware, this promise is only
valid _as long as MS keeps the activation servers active_. As far as I can
tell, there's nothing that requires MS to keep their activation services
working at any time in the future. Considering that MS typically pulls
support of one version of Windows when the next version is released, there
is the very real risk that MS might follow up the release of Win XP + 1 by
turning off the XP activation servers and refusing to activate future (re)
installs of XP. In effect, _if MS wants to_, they'll be able to force
every XP user to upgrade to within fairly short order of the release of XP
+ 1. Anyone who risks riding that treadmill by trusting MS deserves that
they get.

> Don't get me wrong....I understand exactly what you are saying. Lets
> face it, if I don't want an internal combustion engine in my car, I
> have to get out of the mainstream to satisfy myself.

I'm involved in the trans alt. field (see my web). There's *a lot* more
choice in transport options than in PC operating systems. While it's not
yet possible to buy a non-ICE car with the same performance as an ICE-based
vehicle, this is a limitation of the technology rather than a market bully

Mike Noren

unread,
Jun 22, 2001, 5:11:22 AM6/22/01
to
Replying to (chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T<H+ESE)sympatico.ca) (Coridon
Henshaw) :

: anyone else) for a product that I didn't ask for and won't use. On the

: other hand, XP's activation scheme and .NET are just signs of a monopoly
: abusing its powers.

I'd have to agree with that. Even worse is that MSMessenger is
integrated into XP. A clear stab at ICQ.
You CAN keep the messenger from running by hand-editing the registry,
but it will 'repair' itself back after restart. The "just specify in
the tools menu that it shouldn't run" trick might work, but then you
have to register your messenger at microsoft.com first (or you can't
get at that menu).

: Incidentally, XP's activation scheme has a very nasty problem that hasn't

: been mentioned in the usual media: even though MS 'promises' to allow XP to
: be reinstalled indefinitely on the same hardware, this promise is only
: valid _as long as MS keeps the activation servers active_. As far as I can

Then again, you can always get a crack. This is one case where I'd
personally condone it. XP is so blatantly attempting to corner new
markets like they did the browser market that MS should be fined for
contempt of court...

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages