From: gpsman on
On Oct 23, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> writes:
> > On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> > <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >> "Hadron" <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes:
> >> >> "gpsman" wrote
> >> >>  Brent wrote:
>
> >> >>> 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?
>
> > Minimized evidence of a monopoly.
>
> >> > And yet you go on to describe how you can
> >> > build your own machines etc etc.
>
> > That wasn't me, but your point is irrelevant since a builder is
>
> I wasn't replying to you. As should be blatantly obvious form the
> indentation/quoting and the fact my post was a reply to Rouse.

Relevance?

> > unlikely to choose to develop their own OS and if you want a machine
> > that runs the most popular apps you're going to be installing Windows.
>
> What are you talking about? A builder is free to install anything he
> wants. You do realise he CAN choose Linux if he wants? I did.

You appear to be functionally illiterate.

> >> Somehow, certain posts from Google
> >> Groups don't generate the usual '>' characters in the reply.
>
> > Seems worse than that from GG.  Some responses have arrived entirely
> > misattributed, as in a reply to one appears to be a reply to another.
>
> Posting from google is bad :-;

I'm a rebel by nature.

> >> >> 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.
>
> > Seems like evidence of monopoly power.
>
> It seems like the evidence for a system that runs the people SW
> want. Other systems run SW they dont want. They make their choice.

I've always wondered about that.

> >> 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.
>
> > What's the other easy way?
>
> > I think that must be substantially far from easy considering the
> > evidence that that isn't exactly a stroke of genius likely to have
> > been missed by competitive OS developers.
>
> What "competitive OS developers" do you mean? There is Linux and Apple
> and thats about it. Apple is doing just fine.

All, including those publicly unknown.

> >> What stops the OEM from outright not choosing to install
> >> Windows? Nothing.
>
> > Well, that, common sense, an instinct for survival and the licensing
> > agreement.  An OEM who wants to sell machines with Windows is required
> > to install Windows on every machine sold, and account for them or risk
> > suffering whatever consequences are stipulated in the agreement for
> > breach of contract.
>
> > That's monopoly power.
>
> That's you talking bullshit. Loads of companies have shipped machines
> with Windows OR Linux.

I said they risk suffering the consequences.

It's pretty evident at this point you fail to comprehend much of what
you read, lack the intelligence to realize it, or care.

Should an opening in my collection of nitwits become available, you're
presently top of the list.
-----

- gpsman
From: Hadron on
gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 23, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> writes:
>> > On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>> > <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> >> "Hadron" <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> >> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes:
>> >> >> "gpsman" wrote
>> >> >>  Brent wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> 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?
>>
>> > Minimized evidence of a monopoly.
>>
>> >> > And yet you go on to describe how you can
>> >> > build your own machines etc etc.
>>
>> > That wasn't me, but your point is irrelevant since a builder is
>>
>> I wasn't replying to you. As should be blatantly obvious form the
>> indentation/quoting and the fact my post was a reply to Rouse.
>
> Relevance?
>

Relevance? How about you butting in and saying "that wasn't me" just a
few lines above.

*snip nonsense*

From: gpsman on
On Oct 23, 1:38 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> writes:
> > On Oct 23, 12:00 pm, Hadron <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> >> > <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >> >> "Hadron" <hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote
> >> >> > "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." writes:
> >> >> >> "gpsman" wrote
> >> >> >>  Brent wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> 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?
>
> >> > Minimized evidence of a monopoly.
>
> >> >> > And yet you go on to describe how you can
> >> >> > build your own machines etc etc.
>
> >> > That wasn't me, but your point is irrelevant since a builder is
>
> >> I wasn't replying to you. As should be blatantly obvious form the
> >> indentation/quoting and the fact my post was a reply to Rouse.
>
> > Relevance?
>
> Relevance? How about you butting in and saying "that wasn't me" just a
> few lines above.

Eh, I'll give it one shot.

I wrote: No, that is evidence that it is a monopoly, minimized.

You appeared to have responded to me: Huh? A minimized monopoly?

Followed immediately by: And yet you go on to describe how you can
build your own machines etc etc.

Which I did not write and it made no sense to me, so I "butted in" in
an attempt to eliminate any confusion.

You'll have to forgive me, I didn't yet know you this well.
-----

- gpsman
From: Floyd Rogers on
"Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote
>>On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>>> Indeed. But Microsoft Office is usually the popular choice, given that a
>>> large userbase often shared word documents, excel spreadsheets, etc.
>>
>>Question: Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and
>>were almost the 'standard' in industry. What happened that motivated
>>companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and
>>Excel? Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and
>>be retrained.
>
> Two things:
>
> Microsoft Office, a group of products that worked the same way and
> worked well in Windows for the price of Word Perfect or Quattro or 1-2-3
> alone. WP 5.1 was a $500 product 20 years ago.
>
> The products worked well because MSFT appears to have allowed their
> developers advance access to Windows 3(.1) and allowed them to use
> undocumented features of Windows.

This statement is contrary to the facts: there were only 5 (can't remember
accurately, but that's +-2) internal APIs used, and they were innocuous
shortcuts for file open/close/access. They had virtually no performance
affect, and were made public after they became an issue.

As for timing, outside ISV's had access as early as the internal people.
Most ISV's that had problems struggled over the difference between
Windows APIs and the OS/2 APIs that they had been using. The graphics
and user models were quite different and often affected program structure.

FloydR


From: Floyd Rogers on
<hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote:
>> Indeed. But Microsoft Office is usually the popular choice, given that a
>> large userbase often shared word documents, excel spreadsheets, etc.
>
>Question: Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and
>were almost the 'standard' in industry. What happened that motivated
>companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and
>Excel? Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and
>be retrained.

In the case of Lotus, being bought by IBM slowed down their version
refresh cycle so much they lost the ability to add features fast enough
to compete. To some degree WP didn't have enough R&D resources
(due to scale) to keep up, either.

FloydR