I like microsoft
comnet
I like microsoft
Johan Kullstam
In article <6mgvia$pgv$1...@front3.grolier.fr>, comnet wrote:
> I like microsoft
is this a lame troll or what? with all due respect, even if your
first language isn't english, what kind of a feeble attempt is this?
perhaps it is a warning. like those `this is your brain on drugs' ads
with the frying egg.
this is your brain on microsoft:
`i like microsoft'
any questions?
--
Johan Kullstam [joh...@idt.net]
Nicholas Buenk
Johan Kullstam <joh...@idt.net> wrote in message
slrn6orfci....@sophia.idt.net...
If everybody hated them, why are they still here?
Sam J. Bowling
Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
> In article <6mgvia$pgv$1...@front3.grolier.fr>, comnet wrote:
> > I like microsoft
>
It got you to bite didn't it? ;'P
Phil
Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
industry. Wake up and smell the roses please messers Negativity.
Nicholas Buenk wrote:
> Johan Kullstam <joh...@idt.net> wrote in message
> slrn6orfci....@sophia.idt.net...
> >In article <6mgvia$pgv$1...@front3.grolier.fr>, comnet wrote:
> >> I like microsoft
> >
BinaryBillTheSailor@sea++.com
The CEO of IBM was not speaking of PC's. He was speaking of the
original IBM Mainframe computers and their potential world market.
PC's hadn't even been dreamed of.
Phil
Ya know what I mean Popeye.
ethhoack
Dans le message <35983FB4...@bigpond.com>
Phil <jupi...@bigpond.com> écrit:
>
>Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
>prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
>Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
>sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
and ppl thought with the train the the human body wouldn't stand a
speed higher than 30 km/h.
sowatt ?
pub 2048/7579B421 7D 29 B3 3A CB 2D 42 B1 DE F3 19 D6 18 F6 C5 55
"abwärts wend'ich mich zu der heiligen, unaussprechlichen, geheimnisvollen
nacht. fernab liegt die welt - in eine tiefe gruft versenkt" novalis
BinaryBillTheSailor@sea++.com
Actually, I thought it needed clarification, because When Old man
Watson said it, he meant it as a positive. He thought that selling 5
of those big monsters would be a good thing. He wasn't calling it a
dead market at all.
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:01:50 +1000, Phil <m@s.n> wrote:
>Ya know what I mean Popeye.
>
>BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
>
>> The CEO of IBM was not speaking of PC's. He was speaking of the
>> original IBM Mainframe computers and their potential world market.
>> PC's hadn't even been dreamed of.
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:30:28 +1000, Phil <jupi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
>> >prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
>> >Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
>> >sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
Jeff Read
Phil wrote:
>
> Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
> prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
> Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
> sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
> industry. Wake up and smell the roses please messers Negativity.
That was in the 40's I believe. And Microsoft was founded in 1975. A
*lot* of hardware and software development took place in between which
cannot be attributed to Microsoft. Most software innovation cannot be
attributed to Microsoft, that is until Microsoft buys the innovator.
They got rich on repackaging old software concepts in new ways which
lusers and people still afraid of their computers might like.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft!
Anime & Sonic Fan, / Use Linux/GNU!
All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lindner
Phil wrote:
>
> Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
> prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
> Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
> sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
> industry. Wake up and smell the roses please messers Negativity.
Oh no..not the "if it weren't for Ford, we wouldn't have cars today!" argument.
If Microsoft weren't there, something else would be. Do you really think that
in Microsoft's absence we would have a dead industry? Ridiculous. If anything,
it would be much more vivacious.
Cheers,
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lindner http://www.netcom.com/~frenzy/ fre...@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go then--there are other worlds than these."
Phil
What a bunch of crap. If there was no Microsoft, there would be someone else. Then
you would be bleating about them. Remember that any dimwitted fuckfit can destroy
and few can buid. I admire Gates for managing to achieve all this. If he wasn't
here then one of the current crop would have been King of the Hill. And judging by
their performances over the past decade, we would have total chaos now.
Phil
Well, ya could have fooled me!
BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
> Actually, I thought it needed clarification, because When Old man
> Watson said it, he meant it as a positive. He thought that selling 5
> of those big monsters would be a good thing. He wasn't calling it a
> dead market at all.
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:01:50 +1000, Phil <m@s.n> wrote:
>
> >Ya know what I mean Popeye.
> >
> >BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
> >
> >> The CEO of IBM was not speaking of PC's. He was speaking of the
> >> original IBM Mainframe computers and their potential world market.
> >> PC's hadn't even been dreamed of.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:30:28 +1000, Phil <jupi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Microsoft keeps us all in employment don't they? Their software can be a
> >> >prick to use, however, if they weren't there where will we be today?
> >> >Remember that the CEO of IBM commented once that only five PCs will ever be
> >> >sold. No software development, or hardware development. Just a dead
> >> >industry. Wake up and smell the roses please messers Negativity.
> >> >
Mark Lindner
Phil wrote:
>
> What a bunch of crap. If there was no Microsoft, there would be someone else.
Exactly my point.
>Then you would be bleating about them.
Well, I would only be "bleating" if they had a stranglehold on the industry
with ridiculously inferior products.
> If he wasn't here then one of the current crop would have been King of > the Hill.
And by what reasoning are you presuming that the development of a monopoly is a
matter-of-course in this industry?
> And judging by their performances over the past decade, we would have > total chaos now.
That's debatable, but personally I'd prefer total chaos over ubiquitous
dogshit.
--
Loren Petrich
In article <359B2138.16BB4989@s.n>, Phil <m@s.n> wrote:
>What a bunch of crap. If there was no Microsoft, there would be someone
else. Then >you would be bleating about them. Remember that any dimwitted
fuckfit can destroy >and few can buid. I admire Gates for managing to
achieve all this. If he wasn't >here then one of the current crop would
have been King of the Hill. And judging by >their performances over the
past decade, we would have total chaos now.
Isn't it interesting that M$ groupies mostly talk about M$'s
market share, and not about whatever technical merits M$ software might
have?
This is like saying that Bill Clinton is a great leader simply
because he was elected twice to the Presidency.
And just look at the fan clubs of other OSes -- they talk about
techincal merits, usability, etc. *much* more.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Phil
Not all Microsoft products are inferior. True I don't use all their products. I prefer a
Netscape browser and am trying out other PIMs and Office is a benchmarking software of its
type. However I have great respect for their OS, which is the most important component. I like
the stability.Two crashes in something like 9 years. So do millions of other businesses and
other home users. And you are free to try out other software and if you don't like Microsoft's
offerings, take them off your hard drive. There is no obligation other than the operating
system. As a user, frankly, Mark, I don't give a damn what OS as long as it works.
Secondly, why do you Americans have this problem with monopolies?. What's wrong with a
monopoly?. As long as the monopoliser does things above the law, eg by not physically killing
independent programmers, then what's the big deal? Just not everyone gets rich. Well, thats
life buddy!
Phil
Mark Lindner wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > What a bunch of crap. If there was no Microsoft, there would be someone else.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> >Then you would be bleating about them.
>
> Well, I would only be "bleating" if they had a stranglehold on the industry
> with ridiculously inferior products.
>
> > If he wasn't here then one of the current crop would have been King of > the Hill.
>
> And by what reasoning are you presuming that the development of a monopoly is a
> matter-of-course in this industry?
>
> > And judging by their performances over the past decade, we would have > total chaos now.
>
Phil
Exactly Loren, and Microsoft's OS too has technical merits and usability and
much more. Anyway, who gives a shit about technical merits as long as the
thing works. Technical merits only interest other programmers, and the world
does not revolve around programmers. Those rabid anti-Microsoft dudes gushing
about other OSs are simply expressing a marketing point. Now if the owners of
these OSs got of their asses like Gates and started to aggressively sell
their product so more people knew about the damn thing, then more software
would be produced for that platform etc etc etc.
Anyway, what's wrong with Bill Clinton?. As a non-American, I can safely say
that of all of your recent Presidents, he is the best by far. Very stable and
has persevered under extreme pressure. Just like Bill Gates. Hang on...is
there a similarity...BILL Gates...BILL Clinton...HMMM...I'd vote for that if
I could?
Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <359B2138.16BB4989@s.n>, Phil <m@s.n> wrote:
>
> >What a bunch of crap. If there was no Microsoft, there would be someone
> else. Then >you would be bleating about them. Remember that any dimwitted
> fuckfit can destroy >and few can buid. I admire Gates for managing to
> achieve all this. If he wasn't >here then one of the current crop would
> have been King of the Hill. And judging by >their performances over the
> past decade, we would have total chaos now.
>
Loren Petrich
In article <359C71E6.5C24CF80@s.n>, Phil <m@s.n> wrote:
>Exactly Loren, and Microsoft's OS too has technical merits and usability and
>much more. Anyway, who gives a shit about technical merits as long as the
>thing works. Technical merits only interest other programmers, and the world
However, there are such things as:
Ease of use and configuration (installation, uninistallation, etc.)
Responsiveness
Stability
Resource use
that interest more than technogeeks.
Dan
Now how much does Win95 use?
Not to mention Win98 (including IE4)
Dan.
LShaping
wrote:
>It was Bill Gates that once said "640K will be enough for anybody!"
>Now how much does Win95 use?
>Not to mention Win98 (including IE4)
>
>Dan.
And you have to wonder why each "upgrade" runs slower on faster
hardware. Yeah, it does more, big deal. I want Microsoft to produce
leaner meaner operating systems that don't try to do it all. But we
wont get that until MS is spanked into submission. And you know we
wont get it if MS is allowed to stuff everything into the OS and drive
everybody else out of business. What a racket.
LShaping.
Travis Green
sizes of
COMMAND.COM from versions 2.0 to 6.22. They get progressively larger. OK,
take MS-DOS x.xx and load it in DEBUG. Perform a bunch of assembler dumps
and you'll find a bunch of 0's (ie. NOP's). In fact, if you manage to
exhaustivly
process every subroutine in the command intrepreter, these blocks of NOP's
will never be reached. You might ask why did MS put all those NOP's into
the executable. The reason is that when MS was developing the intrepreter,
they reserved blocks of code space for developement. Once they finished
development, there were block left over. So, instead of optimizing their
code
and freeing up the valueable space, (keep in mind the 640k barrier), they
let
the gaps stay were they lay. The reason for this was money. They had a
working
OS, and it wasn't worth the effort to optimize. How large is the DOS 6.22
command intrepreter anyhow, 60+k?
Last month I was attending a career fair. MS had a booth. Take a wild
guess as
to the type of positions they were looking to fill. Being an OS and
application
(with ditherings of hardware) you might expect them to be looking for
system
developers and application programmers. No, they were looking for
technical
people to man the phones to help people cope with MS products. I think
that
says a lot about the MS product line. How can they afford to provide large
staffs of technical people to help their clients cope? By charging those
clients for the help. Remember those nightmarish week following the
release
of Windows 95? Not too many people were happy about MS's flashy new OS.
Lastly, lets not forget about contracts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
doesn't MS
have binding contracts with most (if not all) the prefabricating computer
manufacturers regarding OS disbursement. It goes something like this:
Company XYZ manufactures computers. They want to sell them competitively.
They will want to install a MS OS on most machines they manufacture.
Customers have come to expect that the OS be preloaded on a computer they
buy. XYZ could buy a MS OS, like Windows 95, and install it on a new
computer--
cost about $180. This $180 price includes manuals (are they still
including some
sort of paper manual?). Microsoft offers XYZ a special deal. XYZ can pay
a lower
price for the OS if XYZ prints its own manuals and if XYZ signs a contract
with
MS that will entitle MS to a royalty for every computer XYZ manufactures.
This
royalty pays for the price of the OS. Now say that Mr. Green is a
intelligent
computer consumer and he doesn't want a MS OS. Instead, he want some
flavor of Unix or perhaps IBM'S OS/2. XYZ tells Mr. Green that he will
have to
pay extra for OS/2. The box price for a MS OS versus a IBM OS isn't that
much
different. The primium is pretty much what the wholesale price of the IBM
OS is.
Why is Mr. Green having to pay extra. The reason is that Mr. Green was
forced
to pay for the MS OS because of the contract MS had with XYZ. Therefore,
what
is Mr. Green likely to do. He probably won't pay the upgrade price to get
the other
OS. Now, image that MS throws in a couple of extras, just because XYZ was
good enough to sign the contract, like MS Word, or MS Office at a discount,
and
we all know that MS Money will be included. Now, whose software procucts
do
you think Mr. Green will be using? IBM's, Borland's, Netscape's? Think
again.
LShaping <NoS...@flash.net> wrote in article
<35a8268...@news.flash.net>...
Jeremy Crabtree
>
> >On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:06:22 +0100, "Dan" <dan-...@mcmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>It was Bill Gates that once said "640K will be enough for anybody!"
> >>Now how much does Win95 use?
> >>Not to mention Win98 (including IE4)
> >>
> >>Dan.
> >And you have to wonder why each "upgrade" runs slower on faster
> >hardware. Yeah, it does more, big deal. I want Microsoft to produce
> >leaner meaner operating systems that don't try to do it all. But we
> >wont get that until MS is spanked into submission. And you know we
> >wont get it if MS is allowed to stuff everything into the OS and drive
> >everybody else out of business. What a racket.
> >LShaping.
>
> the graphical interface and some extra applications I need about 8 DD
> disks.
>
> I'm typing this on my amiga. Many of you will say this is crap machine.
> And yes, the hardware from 1990 is crap. So are Pc- hardware from 1990.
>
> Well, to the point: AmigaOS does anything you can do with win95 excluding
> memory protection :-(, but I don't think Memory Protection takes around
> 100 MBs? Or am I wrong?
<GASP> You mean to tell me that Win95 _HAS_ memory protectyion!??!?
<HEHEHE>
--
There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its
abuse -John Adams
Nicolas Mendoza
>wrote:
>>It was Bill Gates that once said "640K will be enough for anybody!"
>>Now how much does Win95 use?
>>Not to mention Win98 (including IE4)
>>
>>Dan.
>And you have to wonder why each "upgrade" runs slower on faster
>hardware. Yeah, it does more, big deal. I want Microsoft to produce
>leaner meaner operating systems that don't try to do it all. But we
>wont get that until MS is spanked into submission. And you know we
>wont get it if MS is allowed to stuff everything into the OS and drive
>everybody else out of business. What a racket.
>LShaping.
Hmmm not to boast or anything, but my OS consists of <1MB in a romchip. For
the graphical interface and some extra applications I need about 8 DD
disks.
I'm typing this on my amiga. Many of you will say this is crap machine.
And yes, the hardware from 1990 is crap. So are Pc- hardware from 1990.
Well, to the point: AmigaOS does anything you can do with win95 excluding
memory protection :-(, but I don't think Memory Protection takes around
100 MBs? Or am I wrong?
- Nicolás Mendoza - nic...@geocities.com - a1260 50mHz 34 mB 2,11 gB -
Jeff Read
> Well, to the point: AmigaOS does anything you can do with win95 excluding
> memory protection :-(, but I don't think Memory Protection takes around
> 100 MBs? Or am I wrong?
You're right. Linux (also available for your Amiga) offers memory
protection in a lot less space.
