May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 22:35 On 2009-10-23, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > (Hint: pay attention to the orange dots and black dots of quality in > Consumer Reports, and if your product is below par, improve it.) Time for a traditional r.a.d consumer reports thread? Paging dr. parker.....
From: gpsman on 22 Oct 2009 22:51 On Oct 22, 2:13 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> writes: > > Brent wrote: > > >>Monopolies require the aid of the state. > > > No they don't. > > Yes, they clearly do. As the examples given have shown. Proof by example; logical fallacy. > Why do you insist on being so infantile and thick? Perhaps you should reevaluate. ----- - gpsman
From: gl4317 on 22 Oct 2009 23:13 In article <4adfd3a7$0$22514$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Otto Yamamoto <roscoe(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:52:07 -0400, Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote: > > > What the liberals did, in their desperation and inability to win an > > election, was to defile the prestige of the Presidency for their own > > political gain, right down to their aid and comfort to our enemies. > > > > The rules are set now, and the Right didn't start them. > > Let's see. Reagan 8 years, Bush 41 4 years, Bush 43 8 years; and 12 years > of republican congressional majorities. Plus a sledge-hammer presence in > the media during all that time. Name a 'liberal' commentator equivalent > to Rush, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, et. al. And they still couldn't subdue > the 'liberals' or 'set the rules' to their favour. Pretty pathetic, I'd > say. You're forgetting the majority of justices on the various courts that were also appointed by Republicans. -- -Glennl Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 22 Oct 2009 23:54 "Hadron" <hadronquark(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hbpmqt$ckp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> writes: > >> "gpsman" <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message >> news:12fdab1a-eceb-4459-965f-7232fa79cb3c(a)e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 20, 12:17 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> [snip...] >> >>> Microsoft leverages market share. Often in unethical ways. This doesn't >>> make it a monopoly. >> >> No, that is evidence that it is a monopoly, minimized. > > Huh? A minimized monopoly? And yet you go on to describe how you can > build your own machines etc etc. > Well actually gpsman does, I don't. Somehow, certain posts from Google Groups don't generate the usual '>' characters in the reply. Therefore, I prefixed each of my replies to quoted text (without the '>' characters) using the asterisk (*) character. It's not the greatest workaround, but it's better than top posting in the case of inline replies. Anyway... >> >> Windows is installed on 90% of all computers; it owns the market. > Posted by gpsman. > No. The market purchases Windows. The "Market" is totally free to > choose Apple or Linux too. Unless you mean "owns" in the "Ownnzz" type > meaning ... > >> Windows is the standard by which others are judged; is it "better" >> than Windows? >> >> * Windows is installed on that large of a percentage of computers because >> of >> the _applications_ it can run. For example: can MacOS, or Linux, or >> FreeBSD > > Obviously. > Since that reply is to my reply, I'll continue.Windows is just the OS. It's the applications, both the Microsoft ones and the third party ones >> run Microsoft Office 2007? Sure, there are equivalents (OpenOffice) but >> that's not the point... if the alternative OS cannot run that _exact_ >> application then Windows is the obvious choice. > > Of course. People like and use those apps. > >> >> Same goes for something like the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop, >> Cakewalk Sonar, Vegas Video, etc. in that if the alternative OS cannot >> run >> those _exact_ applications then Windows is the obvious choice. > > You made that point already, but yes. > But it's still an important one. One could also ask--does the Mac have a competitive application? If so, why isn't that application compelling enough to increase market share? Same could be asked about UNIX or Linux. >> >> Once those alternative operating systems can run those exact applications >> as >> well as or better than Windows can, only then will Windows stop being the >> obvious choice for running popular/powerful applications. > > I'm not sure if you're joking here. These programs run on Windows > because Windows was the dominant OS and so they targeted Windows. Thy > are written for Windows. > I am not joking. One of the easiest ways to get a user to switch from Windows to the alternative OS is for the alternative OS to run those same apps, either with equal or better performance. Virtual machines don't quite make for full compatibility. Native OS support would, even if the libraries had to be licensed from the binaries. >> >> It's also very possible to buy a computer from a vendor that has Windows >> installed on it, but then install any Linux or FreeBSD distribution on >> it. > > Yup. And install Open Office for example ... > Indeed. But Microsoft Office is usually the popular choice, given that a large userbase often shared word documents, excel spreadsheets, etc. >> Yes, the OEM's system cost does include the Windows installation, but one >> doesn't even have to go that route. > > Nope. Because there is NO monopoly. > There isn't. What stops the OEM from outright not choosing to install Windows? Nothing. They could sell only Linux machines, only FreeBSD machines. But if the OEM sells a machine bundled with Windows, that is their business choice. That makes sense enough for me. >> >> It's also very possible for one to build their own system from separate >> components. Buy the motherboard, processor, memory, hard disk drive, >> computer case, etc. and then install whatever OS choice one makes on that >> system. (Very likely, due to massive application support, one would still >> choose Windows.) >> >> As for the browser issue, even with MSIE integrated into the OS, it was >> and >> still is possible to install an alternative web browser such as Mozilla >> Firefox or Opera and use it, instead of launching MSIE, to browse the >> web. > > As should be obvious to the most rabid "advocate". > And yet I still prefer MSIE, due to the most functionality in the browser, without having to install a bunch of third party plug-ins. I also don't upgrade to any new MSIE browser until at least Service Pack 1, so I am aware of the early issues usually present with the initial browser releases. >> >> So tell me again how Microsoft has a bona fide monopoly? Even if they >> leverage market share, it's because the customers are making a choice to >> go >> with Windows over any other alternative OS. I am not disputing they have >> a >> dominant market share, but they don't have _all_ the market, so it simply >> can't be the true definition of a monopoly. If Microsoft breaks standards >> and the customers adopt the application instead of reject it, then it >> says >> more about the customers wanting more functionality over locked >> down/mostly >> rigid standards than it does about Microsoft's business practices. > > You have confused me. What was with your "minimized monopoly" statement > earlier? > See above, the minimized monopoly reference was from gpsman. [snip...]
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 23 Oct 2009 00:02
<hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:69d20cd6-4a55-467b-926c-abd2211fd850(a)d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... On Oct 22, 9:18 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > Windows is installed on 90% of all computers; it owns the market. > Windows is the standard by which others are judged; is it "better" > than Windows? I don't know the statistics, but we have to be careful when we say "90% of all computers". Computers come in different sizes and the bigger ones do not necessarily use Windows. Many computers out there work as servers and as such don't they use a Sun or Oracle operating system? Mainframes, which today have enormous computer power, of course do not use Windows at all. In terms of raw count there aren't that many mainframes, but in terms of horsepower, they represent a huge number of desktops. ** Just to clarify, that 90% reference was from gpsman. There is an issue with replying to some posts from Google Groups that does not cause the usual '>' characters to appear in the reply. It has happened again replying to your post. My replies are inline, preceded now by a double-asterisk (**). The rest of your post, however, does reply to my comments. There is also the issue of economies of scale. Many "personal computers" today are used as basically dumb terminals and probably don't even need Windows. But distribution economies make it simpler to include it. It's just like heaters in automobiles, which are standard equipment in cars. I'm sure plenty of places have no need for a car heater but they have one anyway. (Fifty years ago a heater in a car was an option.) > * Windows is installed on that large of a percentage of computers because > of > the _applications_ it can run. For example: can MacOS, or Linux, or > FreeBSD > run Microsoft Office 2007? Sure, there are equivalents (OpenOffice) but > that's not the point... if the alternative OS cannot run that _exact_ > application then Windows is the obvious choice. Excellent point. ** I thought so, and yet for many, it is a point that is often overlooked. The OS is just a kernel and a windowing environment without applications. > So tell me again how Microsoft has a bona fide monopoly? As I understand US anti-trust law, merely having this kind of market share is enough basis to get the Justice Dept after you, regardless of how the market share is acquired. IBM was in the same position as M/S years ago and DOJ went after it. IBM won, though previously it did modify some of its marketing policies, such as unbundling. ** Which to me, is sort of paradoxical. One gets to be successful, but then there is a point where one has become too successful and must apparently be brought down, even with government help. As long as there is choice, IMHO I still don't see it as a monopoly. [snip...] |