Will the cost of ISDN go down now that there are cheaper, faster alternatives?
Richard R. Priest
to reason that ISDN should go down in price.
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> If RR and ADSL are both faster and cheaper than ISDN, it would stand
> to reason that ISDN should go down in price.
YSTHM "If RR and ADSL are faster and cheaper than ISDN and available in
all the same places..."
HTH.
Roadrunner, in Houston, is vapor. Period, full stop.
Most of the people who have ADSL seem to be getting good results for
the price. Not everybody is located where they can get ADSL. There are
lots of people who can get ISDN but not ADSL.
Until there is real competition for ISDN for the vast majority of the
potential market, I don't anticipate any big price drop.
(Also: SWB will only make ISDN cheaper if they want to sell more of
it. Right now, they seem to have their hands full trying to install
the orders they are already getting. No sense in dropping the price to
create orders they won't be able to fill...)
--
Mail to henke at insync dot net.
jo...@lconn.net
I predict pricing for ISDN and analog will increase or at best stay the
same. Now that the FCC has declared calls to ISPs as interstate (..long
distance) which spells dooms day for reciprocal compensation to CLECs
providing inbound traffic to ISPs. It is very possible that disputes
for existing interconnection agreements will be resolved by a compromise
that includes raising tariffs for PRIs to a profitable rate for the
CLEC.
Remember that SWB does not like 1) Small ISPs or Competition, 2)
Dedicated calls over their switched network, and 3) reciprocal
compensation for calls to ISPs. Small ISPs: They cost SWB more money
then they generate. In addition, as you may have noticed SWB was the
first ISP offering DSL services and thus was able to set industry
standards for pricing. Do you believe ISPs would have sold 1 megabit
circuits for $10.00? The $10.00 profitability model is based on high
volume that requires a significant marketing budget. The market share as
a whole is finite and now an ISP has to be able to acquire a greater
portion meaning the number of ISPs will be reduced. Dedicated calls: SWB
did not design their network for everyone to use the phone at the same
time. Answer, offer an always online service at a price 30 times less
then industry standards for dedicated internet services. Reciprocal
Compensation: SWB was able to convince the FCC that when you make a call
to your ISP the call continues to the website you are browsing (e.g.
www.yahoo.com ) which does not reside in Houston. Now SWB can take the
position that the last leg of the a call to an ISP is not delivered by
the CLEC (the basis for reciprocal compensation) providing service to
the ISP.
Their is a good article in the last edition of the Houston Press that
shows how SWB owns the Texas legislation. The same tactics applied to
the FCC.
Just my opinion...
joel
jcol...@infohwy.com
to ISP calls.. HOWEVER.... since the driving force in computer
purchases these days is the "Internet ready system" ie.. go home hook
it up, and hop on the net, I predict that if the FCC enforced this
rule of "any call to an isp is a long distance call and can be billed
as such" will cause a GREAT uproar in computer vendors and even cause
Microsoft to get involved. how many people here can remember when you
bought a system and the O/S was NOT included? a modem was a 300
dollar option and that was for a 2400 baud?
If the government tries to stifle the growth and use of the net, then
alot of jobs will be cut since they are directly connected to the net,
(look at all the people working at ISP's.. and in WAN network postions
that may not be needed) thus un-employment goes up. What presidential
admistration would want THAT on their record?
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> How many people here can remember when you bought a system and the
> O/S was NOT included?
I do. And I consider the "Microsoft Tax" on new systems a bug, not a
feature. I do not like having to pay for something I'm only going to
throw away, especially considering where the wasted money ends up.
Fortunately, there are alternatives. One is:
http://www.LinuxMall.com/refund/
(Note: The above is not just for Linux-heads. If you run any of the
various BSD flavors, Sloaris, BeOS, Plan9, OS/2 or even a different
flavor of 'doze than what came with your new box, check it out.)
Another alternative is buying from a vendor (like Compaq, IBM or Dell,
to pick three random big ones) that at least offer you a choice of OS.
Another is building a system from components, which will always give
you a better system that is more closely matched to your needs for a
given price, provided you know what you're doing.
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> Do you think IBM could have put out a machine where they told the
> customer to "load your own" OS ?
I do indeed think so, because IBM is currently offering exactly that
for those who want it. So are a number of other big vendors of
computer systems such as Dell, Gateway, Compaq, VA Research and so
on. This isn't hypothetical or a matter of my opinion; it's really
happening right now today.
> You know and I know that 95% of these retail-market boxes went to
> customers who *demanded* that the latest Microsoft operating system
> be included.
Assuming for the moment that your figure is correct, so what? I'm
not suggesting that Joe Public not be allowed to order a computer
with 'doze if that's what he wants. I'm not even suggesting that it
should not be the default setting.
All I want is to have the _option_ of buying any given system without
paying the "Microsoft Tax." And enough other people feel the same way
that many big vendors are giving them the option. This is a step
forward.
> Don't want an operating system? Get a clone. Get a server that
> comes from the factory with Novell or Unix.
Why should I have to pay for software I don't want and won't use if I
want a brand name low-end desktop system?
Stuart Feldman
> Richard,
> I predict pricing for ISDN and analog will increase or at best stay the
> same. Now that the FCC has declared calls to ISPs as interstate (..long
> distance) which spells dooms day for reciprocal compensation to CLECs
> providing inbound traffic to ISPs. It is very possible that disputes
This is NOT TRUE! This was proposed, but was never implemented. In fact, it was
declared DOA by the outgoing chair of the FCC.
Stuart
Joel B. Bintliff
Sorry but it is true. Go read the ruling at the fcc website:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014.html
Just because they did not impose a per minute charge does not mean they didn't claim
jurisdiction. The basis for claiming jurisdiction is what supports SWB position that
the CLEC is not delivering the last leg of the call.
joel
"In today's decision, the Commission noted that it traditionally has determined the
jurisdictional nature of communications by the end points of the communication.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the calls at issue in this proceeding do
not terminate at the ISPs' local servers, but continue to their ultimate
destinations,
specifically at websites that are often located in other states or countries. As a
result, the Commission found that, although some Internet traffic is intrastate, a
substantial portion of Internet traffic is interstate and therefore subject to
federal jurisdiction."
Dustin Slater
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/faq_recp.html
It's a FAQ of the commonly misunderstood Q & A's.
-Dustin
Joe Shaw
The FCC has stated repeatedly that there will be no long distances charges
placed on calls to ISP's, as recently as Feb. 25th of this year.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html
So much FUD, so little time.
--
Joseph W. Shaw - js...@insync.net
Freelance Computer Security Consultant and Perl Programmer
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 jcol...@infohwy.com wrote:
> I have not heard anything about the FCC doing the long distance deal
> to ISP calls.. HOWEVER.... since the driving force in computer
> purchases these days is the "Internet ready system" ie.. go home hook
> it up, and hop on the net, I predict that if the FCC enforced this
> rule of "any call to an isp is a long distance call and can be billed
> as such" will cause a GREAT uproar in computer vendors and even cause
> Microsoft to get involved. how many people here can remember when you
> bought a system and the O/S was NOT included? a modem was a 300
> dollar option and that was for a 2400 baud?
>
> If the government tries to stifle the growth and use of the net, then
> alot of jobs will be cut since they are directly connected to the net,
> (look at all the people working at ISP's.. and in WAN network postions
> that may not be needed) thus un-employment goes up. What presidential
> admistration would want THAT on their record?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:30:16 -0500, jo...@lconn.net wrote:
>
> >Richard,
> > I predict pricing for ISDN and analog will increase or at best stay the
> >same. Now that the FCC has declared calls to ISPs as interstate (..long
> >distance) which spells dooms day for reciprocal compensation to CLECs
> >providing inbound traffic to ISPs. It is very possible that disputes
Joel B. Bintliff
No doubt that the FCC is not going to impose a per minute and I am not trying to
take a position that the FCC will or spread fear in that regard. But do you
believe it kills reciprocal compensation to CLECs for calls to ISPs? And if so what
will be the impact on pricing for PRIs?
joel
Joe Shaw
From: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html
2. So why is this suddenly an issue?
There is a dispute in the telephone industry over whether calls to ISPs
are subject to reciprocal compensation, and that is the matter the FCC is
considering. In the example above, if the consumer dials up the Internet
over the phone lines of Phone Company A, and the ISP is served by Company
B, the question is whether Company A must compensate Company B for
delivering the call to the ISP. That is the only issue before the
Commission with regard to this matter.
[pay attention, this is the really important part]
Thus, the manner in which consumers pay for Internet access is not before
the Commission and the Commission repeatedly has stated that it will not
change the manner in which consumers obtain and pay for Internet access.
Rumors to the contrary persist, however, and the FCC has received hundreds
of thousands of e-mails on the subject over the last two years.
[Skipping down to question #4]
4. What did the FCC conclude in its February 25, 1999 decision?
The Declaratory Ruling concludes that carriers are bound by their existing
interconnection agreements, as interpreted by state commissions, and thus
are subject to reciprocal compensation obligations to the extent provided
by such agreements or as determined by state commissions. The Declaratory
Ruling finds that Internet traffic is jurisdictionally mixed and appears
to be largely interstate in nature. But, the Declaratory Ruling preserves
the rule that exempts the Internet and other information services from
interstate access charges. This means that those consumers may continue to
access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number and will not incur
long distance charges when they do so. In a notice of proposed rulemaking,
the Commission also asked for comment on proposals governing future
carrier-to-carrier compensation for handling this traffic.
[End]
I think that pretty much sums it up.
--
Joseph W. Shaw - js...@insync.net
Freelance Computer Security Consultant and Perl Programmer
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> On 03 Jun 1999 13:20:35 -0500, he...@kharendaen.krall.org wrote:
> >Why should I have to pay for software I don't want and won't use if I
> >want a brand name low-end desktop system?
>
> that it comes without a dome light.
This would be a good analogy if dome lights accounted for ten or
twenty percent of the cost of the car, made it break down once or
twice a day, and if all the profits from selling dome lights accrued
to Bill Gates rather than GM.
Given all those conditions (or even any one of those conditions), then
yes, I would think it reasonable to want to order a car without one.
--
Mail to henke "What Taliban?" at insync dot net.
Joe Shaw
From:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014.html
"This jurisdictional decision does not, however, determine whether calls
to ISPs are subject to reciprocal compensation in any particular instance.
The Commission noted that parties may have agreed that ISP-bound traffic
should be subject to reciprocal compensation, or a state commission, in
the exercise of its statutory authority under sections 251 and 252 of
the Act to arbitrate interconnection disputes, may have imposed reciprocal
compensation obligations for this traffic. In either case, the Commission
noted that carriers are bound by their existing interconnection contracts,
as interpreted by state commissions."
It doesn't kill recporocal compensation because the LEC's are still
bound to their original agreements with CLEC's, regardless of whether the
call is to a PRI plugged into a PBX for a company or a
Cisco/Livingston/Ascend/etc. RAS. It may kill reciprocal compensation
between the ILEC and any new CLEC's that are about to start up for ISP
terminated calls when they negotiate their peering contracts, but then
again it may not. I don't know enough about the proceedings and the terms
of most of these contracts to be able to say one way or another how they
come out. But, this decision by the FCC was basicly useless, as I'm sure
most new CLECS coming into the game are getting stiffed when it comes to
calls terminated into ISP's. And from what I understand from the various
mailing lists I'm on that have ISP's who became their own CLEC on them,
most phone companies aren't paying them reciprocal compensation for
calls anyway.
Also, there are still ISP's who don't use CLEC's for telco service.
Insync uses a great deal of SWB lines; SWB had just installed OC-12 to
start running incoming PRI and DS-3 lines because they had some many lines
and were constantly bringing up new ones right before I resigned.
As much as I hate to do it, I really must agree with Bill Gates. The
Internet will progress to a point where the end-user consumers will no
longer have to pay for connectivity. It's content and content providing
that will be the money makers, and housing those content providers via
co-location facilities is where the money is going to be.
--
Joseph W. Shaw - js...@insync.net
Freelance Computer Security Consultant and Perl Programmer
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Joel B. Bintliff wrote:
> Joe,
> No doubt that the FCC is not going to impose a per minute and I am not trying to
> take a position that the FCC will or spread fear in that regard. But do you
> believe it kills reciprocal compensation to CLECs for calls to ISPs? And if so what
> will be the impact on pricing for PRIs?
> joel
>
>
> Joe Shaw wrote:
>
> > The FCC has stated repeatedly that there will be no long distances charges
> > placed on calls to ISP's, as recently as Feb. 25th of this year.
> >
> > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html
> >
> > So much FUD, so little time.
> >
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> On 04 Jun 1999 10:26:02 -0500, he...@kharendaen.krall.org wrote:
>> [ more of Ye Olde Microsoft Tax argument ]
>
> There are two components to this argument ... having a choice,
> and not liking who is benefitting from your lack of choice. The
> latter always seems to 80% of the overall discussion.
Did you actually count words or bytes to arrive at that figure? If you
mean "most," then say "most." Don't make up statistics.
For the sake of argument, I'll concede for the moment that I don't
care who profits. All I care about is 1) what do I spend and 2) what
do I get, so we can concentrate on the remaining "20%".
> I can understand why some people don't want to pay even two
> cents in the rest of their lives for an operating system. But they
> never seem to understand that the companies building machines
> don't want to spend two cents extra to support a tiny minority.
The minority is not as tiny as you think. The differential cost in
building machines that you claim is there, isn't. The differential
cost in support that you claim is there, is in the _opposite_
direction that you claim.
Companies like IBM and Dell and Gateway and Compaq are in business to
make money. They would not offer to sell machines sans Windows unless
they thought it would benefit the bottom line. They would not continue
to do so if it proved otherwise.
They do, in fact, do this. QED.
I think we're likely to soon reach the point where we have to agree to
disagree. HIP is remarkably tolerant of off-topic threads, but I don't
want to test anyone's patience further. You're welcome to the last word,
if you want it.
texaport
>The minority is not as tiny as you think. The differential cost in
>building machines that you claim is there, isn't. The differential
>cost in support that you claim is there, is in the _opposite_
>direction that you claim.
Just come out and say you think people are dumb if they use Windows,
and you think Windows users are stupid or just don't know any better.
Without even looking back to see where the subject thread changed
from ISDN and Internet Providers to Microsoft and Operating Systems,
I bet that it wasn't someone saying something good about the latter.
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> Just come out and say you think people are dumb if they use Windows,
> and you think Windows users are stupid or just don't know any better.
Why would I say that when I don't believe it's true?
I believe Microsoft engages in business practices which are dishonest and
predatory, and are destructive to computing as a whole.
I believe that their software is an extremely poor match for the way I
personally use computers.
I know that there are some users whose needs are such that Microsoft
products are the best solution right now, for them. My parents, for
example -- they don't want to use a computer, they want to send email,
write letters and play a few games. I personally chose and installed
'doze 98 for them. It's the right choice for what they want to do, even
though I would never use it myself. Giving them something like FreeBSD
would be stupid; the computer would sit on a shelf.
The last opinion is in no way incompatible with the first two. Why don't
you start reading for content instead of keywords, and stop trying to
put words in my mouth?
> Without even looking back to see where the subject thread changed
> from ISDN and Internet Providers to Microsoft and Operating Systems,
> I bet that it wasn't someone saying something good about the latter.
It was a nostalgia thing. Somebody said something along the lines of
"remember when you could buy a computer with no OS installed," implying
that 1) that was no longer the case and 2) that this was a step forward.
I pointed out that (1) is demonstrably false, and if (1) were true, then
(2) would be, in my opinion, false.
Followups.
Jeff
texaport cast electrons in the following form:
| On 04 Jun 1999 14:54:29 -0500, he...@kharendaen.krall.org wrote:
|
|>The minority is not as tiny as you think. The differential cost in
|>building machines that you claim is there, isn't. The differential
|>cost in support that you claim is there, is in the _opposite_
|>direction that you claim.
|
| and you think Windows users are stupid or just don't know any better.
There is quite a bit of 'just don't know any better' in this. But
that's because there is quite a bit of 'they are not give any choice' in this.
If you are not given a choice of color for your car, you are unlikely to spend
much time thinking about why a white car might be better then the black one you
have to take in this climate. Notice I didn't say a black car was BAD or that
a white car was better in all cases.
|
| Without even looking back to see where the subject thread changed
| from ISDN and Internet Providers to Microsoft and Operating Systems,
| I bet that it wasn't someone saying something good about the latter.
Now that's a sucker bet. The only people wanting a change are those
unhappy with what they have.
---
Jeff Hupp <jh...@gensys.com>
PGP Public key available on the key servers.
It should not be considered a capital crime to wake someone needlessly.
The first time.
texaport
>>>The minority is not as tiny as you think. The differential cost in
>>>building machines that you claim is there, isn't. The differential
>>>cost in support that you claim is there, is in the _opposite_
>>>direction that you claim.
>
>> Just come out and say you think people are dumb if they use Windows,
>> and you think Windows users are stupid or just don't know any better.
>
>Actually, it's more that supporting no operating system costs $0 compared
>to supporting any operating system, which costs $$. If 50% of Windows
>customers call with problems, and only 80% of the units ship with Windows,
>that's a 20% savings on support costs right there.
Not at all. And the example given one reply back in the thread
says the opposite too. The companies like Micron, Packard Bell,
Gateway, etc -- they spend money on diagnostic programs that
run under Windows. Same for Dell, Hewlett Packard, et al
The person who calls tech support that cannot install Windows and
cannot run the diagnostic is very expensive to support. The days
of a single bootable floppydisk-based diagnostic program are over.
The technical support people at these companies do not help people
with whatever Office Suite program someone calls in about, even
if it is bundled. The bundled operating system is hardly different.
If it goes beyond re-installing the original factory fresh disk
image ... they'll tell you to call your own internal help desk,
call Microsoft, or call a fee-based solution provider. Lessons on
how to copy a floppy disk in Windows aren't included in the purchase
price of retail machines, and bundled OSes aren't a factor in the
other case of buying from a clone shop.
texaport
>I know that there are some users whose needs are such that Microsoft
>products are the best solution right now, for them. My parents, for
>example -- they don't want to use a computer, they want to send email,
>write letters and play a few games. I personally chose and installed
>'doze 98 for them. It's the right choice for what they want to do
Did you go out and buy them the full $180 version of Windows 98, or
did you go out and buy the $89 upgrade version? :)
I can't imagine you even having one just laying around with an unused
license ...
TxRomeo
texaport <SPA...@texaport.com> wrote in message
news:375d7d9c...@news.giganews.com...
license...... Thats the trash fills up the ng's....
TxRomeo
> On 04 Jun 1999 14:54:29 -0500, he...@kharendaen.krall.org wrote:
>
> >The minority is not as tiny as you think. The differential cost in
> >building machines that you claim is there, isn't. The differential
> >cost in support that you claim is there, is in the _opposite_
> >direction that you claim.
>
> Just come out and say you think people are dumb if they use Windows,
> and you think Windows users are stupid or just don't know any better.
>
> from ISDN and Internet Providers to Microsoft and Operating Systems,
> I bet that it wasn't someone saying something good about the latter.
I personaly think that anyone that calls a windows use dumd is showing where
they brain pan stands... In fact ... I have a feeling that if you asked
anyone that has a Masters in CS... You'll find that most are windows
users... Dont get me wrong.... I like my unix/linux ... Its a nice os for
the MORE advanced user.. Who needs the power and stable os that will do
great networking tasks.... But even then... You'll find that more then half
of the current linux users ... really dont need to be working on it...or
have a need for it... Hell they would be doing good to even know 5% of what
its capable of...... I think they just use it... to sound like they know
what they are doing... And if you havent noticed... linux is looking more
and more like windows..and less and less a "unix" os..... Times are Changing
and Bill gates has is about to release a very nice os... win2k ... now 95/98
.. were pretty worthless in my mind...but they got the job done for the
world.. it was easy to use..... If you didnt mind seeing the blue screen of
death 5 times a day... But since it was soo easy to use... More ppl in this
world went out and got computers... and computer sales and pushed companys
like AMD and INTEL to move faster and faster in the right direction... So
for once Bill Gates helped out the net nerds... So live with windows if you
have to...but if you dont...and you can use a better os..sure go for
linux..but dont go to it..just becuase..it might be a bit better on some
things..but worse on others.... remember where the world is... stay in your
leage.......
TxRomeo
ps... on the idsn side...
I love my isdn... runs great.. have a nice webramp router...(which I might
add I like better then any pipeline or cisco.) And I know alot of you Cisco
nuts will be telling me I'm craszy for saying that...but hell... if you want
to talk about Cisco.. lets... Becuase anytime you get stuck..and need
help... where to you call... CISCO tech support...and where do you call...
you call a place in houston...which happens to be where I work... yea i know
cisco..and they are great..but a waste of money for isdn..... ok now the
network its on is simple.. its a little 7 computer network.... dual 450p2,
256megs ram.. beta testing win2k serv.... , 2nd computer is a 450 with
128megs ram...running NT work.... 3rd is a 333 with 64megs ram Win98
(wife's computer)... 4th is a Alaph 266Mhz..128megs ram... running NT 4
server..... 5th computer is a dual Ppro 200... with 512megs ram running Red
hat 5.2....and the 6th is a laptop 166
running 98...and the last..but not least... oh yea.. my big bad boy....
super sparc 1000e server... 4 mother boards 16cpu's 140Mhz... 396megs
ram... 18gigs of hd....3 100/base nic cards... :)..... Now if i just had
the time to use the computer i have .. lol.. it would be nice....... but it
never mattered the os... all run great... with the built in DHCP server on
the router....
kh...@phoenix.net
>
> RATIONING BY INCONVENIENCE: This was another element of the USR Support
> nightmare that has since caught on and become an industry standard. By
> taking out the toll-free number and by staffing their support desks only
> during the business day, USR made it inconvenient for owners to contact
> them and receive support. Likely had they kept the 800 number and staffed
> the support desk 12 or 14 hours a day, the return rate and warranty claim
> rates would have soared.
>
Having been one of the customers that got burned and inconvienced, They lost
my bussiness probably forever. I wonder if they they realize how much damage
was done to reputation. The Mighty fall pretty hard when they are at the top
and get cocky
Re: IBM, Compaq, Netcom, and Maybe someday Msoft.
--
Khan ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghengus Khan kh...@phoenix.net :Opinions and Commentery are free
PGP Server:pgpkeys.mit.edu :That is what I charge and that is
http://www.phoenix.net/~khan :what they are worth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
he...@kharendaen.krall.org
> Did you go out and buy them the full $180 version of Windows 98 [for
> your parents], or did you go out and buy the $89 upgrade version?
The full one, since I wasn't "upgrading."
> I can't imagine you even having one just laying around with an unused
> license ...
Even if I had an "unused" license (say, from a machine where I'd
de-installed Windows and not applied for a refund), it would be a
violation of the Microsoft EULA for me to install it on a different
machine.
(If this were otherwise, the whole "refund" thing wouldn't be
necessary. I could just sell my license to someone who wanted to run
'doze. But the EULA forbids this.)
David Zeiger
>
>I love my isdn... runs great.. have a nice webramp router...(which I might
>add I like better then any pipeline or cisco.) And I know alot of you Cisco
>nuts will be telling me I'm craszy for saying that...but hell... if you want
>to talk about Cisco.. lets... Becuase anytime you get stuck..and need
>help... where to you call...
I thought... Bill Shatner... would be using... WebTV... :-)
--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.
Lee Sharp
<375d7d9c...@news.giganews.com>...
> On 05 Jun 1999 10:54:26 -0500, he...@kharendaen.krall.org wrote:
> >I know that there are some users whose needs are such that Microsoft
> >products are the best solution right now, for them. My parents, for
> >example -- they don't want to use a computer, they want to send email,
> >write letters and play a few games. I personally chose and installed
> >'doze 98 for them. It's the right choice for what they want to do
> did you go out and buy the $89 upgrade version? :)
A full OEM version is $90 at my supplier. Pay the extra buck, and get
better medai. A bootable CD as well. Stll, sidesteps the point of the
thread that you can't buy a PC without MS, unless you roll your own PC.
Lee
--
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then. *
Black holes are where God divided by zero. - I am speaking as an
individual, not as a representative of any company, organization or other
entity. I am solely responsible for my words.
kh...@phoenix.net
>
> A full OEM version is $90 at my supplier. Pay the extra buck, and get
> better medai. A bootable CD as well. Stll, sidesteps the point of the
> thread that you can't buy a PC without MS, unless you roll your own PC.
>
Rolling your own or having a local retailer roll one for you is usually the
best way to go anyway. You can avoid all the propriatery crap and get
something thats actually upgradable.
texaport
>> Did you go out and buy them the full $180 version of Windows 98, or
>> did you go out and buy the $89 upgrade version? :)
>
> A full OEM version is $90 at my supplier. Pay the extra buck, and get
>better medai. A bootable CD as well. Stll, sidesteps the point of the
>thread that you can't buy a PC without MS, unless you roll your own PC.
But that is $90 with the purchase of a new PC. If you have been
running FreeBSD or OS/2 for the past 3 years on a 486 ... you are
supposed to pay double to put Windows98 on that machine.
But we still never found out if he paid 1 cent for the install
he did on his parents' machine :)
kh...@phoenix.net
>
>
> But that is $90 with the purchase of a new PC. If you have been
> running FreeBSD or OS/2 for the past 3 years on a 486 ... you are
> supposed to pay double to put Windows98 on that machine.
Any one can buy an OEM version fairly easy. I'd love to see Msoft challange
anyone on it.
Joe Shaw
I think anyone who has had the "pleasure" of providing support to your
average windows user will indeed say they think they're stupid. It's not
that all users out there are, but even if the most newbie users spent an
hour on the phone with just one user who can't even understand that the
phrase "right-click" means click on the icon with the left moust button,
"is your username in lower case" means is it really in lowercase, "is your
caps-lock button off" really means is your caps-lock button off, etc. then
they would understand why those who've worked tech support get so
frustrated. One of those above callers can ruin an entire day, and just
think about those users that call repeatedly with the same problem and
can't even remember what was done to fix the problem last time.
Now, I haven't done technical support for anyone in a long time, and
frankly I'd rather chew glass and then clean a toilet with my tongue
before doing it again. Most people with a helpdesk background and half a
clue (I have met many helpdesk techs who were less qualified than the
people on the phone asking the questions) will say the same, depending on
the environment they came from, as I have seens some support situations
which were dream jobs.
On a more personal note, you might want to work on the punctuation. The
"..." syndrome, which I once suffered from as well, shows a lot of
incomplete thoughts and makes it sound like you're trailing off into
space. Substituting a comma or single period for the "..." would do you
worlds of good, especially in clearly and concisely presenting your
opinions, not to mention simply making it easier to read. :)
--
Joseph W. Shaw - js...@insync.net
Freelance Computer Security Consultant and Perl Programmer
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."
Note: Clubie script kiddies using scripted attacks and automated exploit
probers ARE NOT HACKERS, regardless of what the media tells you.
> I love my isdn... runs great.. have a nice webramp router...(which I might
> add I like better then any pipeline or cisco.) And I know alot of you Cisco
> nuts will be telling me I'm craszy for saying that...but hell... if you want
> to talk about Cisco.. lets... Becuase anytime you get stuck..and need
Joe Shaw
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999 kh...@phoenix.net wrote:
> Having been one of the customers that got burned and inconvienced, They lost
> my bussiness probably forever. I wonder if they they realize how much damage
> was done to reputation. The Mighty fall pretty hard when they are at the top
> and get cocky
Too true. Unfortunately, some places still haven't learned and there will
always be the uninformed consumer to take up some of the slack.
> Re: IBM, Compaq, Netcom, and Maybe someday Msoft.
> --
Sadly, MS shifts to meet computer users needs quite quickly, even if their
products are usually sub-standard.