Re: FWIW - OT MESSAGE HEADERS

Page 2 of 3  
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:08 -0700, "charlie"

Emphasis on the "me". Since 2038 will be the 95th anniversary of my birth and I don't recall any of my relatives ever hitting the 90 mark, I doubt I'll be around to be affected by it.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

you aware of the potential problem?
Seriously. ;-)
--
Froz...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:46:34 GMT, FrozenNorth

My first post in this thread was in response to an assertion that Bill Gates has set computing back 30 years. That's where the 30 came from. At the time, I had no inkling of the looming "Unix Millennium bug".
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:19:52 -0500, wrote:

Me either - I'd be 101 :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny how you have no compunctions about criticising Gates and his contribution to the computer world, yet your headers show that you feel quite comfortable using Windows software. Can you spell hyocrite? Have you ever *heard* the word before?

MS-DOS didn't exist 30 years in 1978 and the first independent version of windows was about 1985. So that blows your 30 year time frame out of the water. Quite obviously, you believe most of what you hear and direct your life on hearsay and innuendo without taking one moment to back up or confirm anything that you've heard. Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista in operation much less actually used it.
Very simply, you're just another flake running with the mob. Well, chicken little, I'm here to tell you that the sky is indeed falling and that you should take immediate shelter because you're about to get rained on big time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

I'm not even slightly "comfortable" using windows software, it sucks. I can use it, I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal monopoly of the operating system market.
Can you spell hyocrite? Have you

Can you spell monopoly, have you ever heard the word before?

Your are dummer than dirt.

Like a fool, you know zip and talk out of your ass. I've been running MS crap since DOS 2.1 and I know it sucks first hand. I know it sucks because I use it and have been intimately familiar with Windows, Unix, and yes, OS2.
Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista

The reason it's obvious is I just said it?

Well, the "mob" is running Gate's Garbage. Most of them have no choice, never had a choice, and probably never will have a choice.

Well lemming, the sky already fell, you already have been rained on, and you're too dumb to know it. Sorry about that.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch writes:

The US government has already won an anti-trust suit against Microsoft for this. The European Union is currently proceeding with an anti-trust action against microsoft.
The findings of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused its monopoly position have been upheld.
So yes, the proper authorities have been informed and are working the problem.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case>
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

They had the problem about solved when the administrative law judge advised the DOJ (under Clinton) that MicroSofts monopoly was far worse than the retributions sought by the DOJ. The DOJ then appealed their victory, saying the judge had no right to do this. It is the only time I have heard someone appealing a law suit after getting MORE than they asked for, appealing the decision and asking for less than they were awarded. Something this lame had to cost Gates a bundle. He of course has a bundle that he has stolen via his illegal monopoly.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

They were notified, the DOJ took MS to court, they were found guilty, the judge told the DOJ they were not asking enough and to re-submit with more appropriate remedy, and the DOJ appealed their victory.
How much do you think it cost Gates to get the DOJ to appeal their victory?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch writes:

They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Convicted"? That was a civil action you cited.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

I didn't read his cite, but "convicted means proven guilty. Microsoft was already proven guilty of illegal monopoly in a court of law. I reckon it was the Sherman anti-trust laws he has been breaking for years now, but no matter, we have all seen the results of what can happen when a ruthless twit owns a monopoly and uses it to force crapola on the general public.
convict Audio Help (k?n-vi(kt') Pronunciation Key v. convicted, convicting, convicts v. tr. 1. Law: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You should.
Guilt or innocence is not a factor in civil proceedings, so Microsoft could not have been "convicted" or "proven guilty" in the cited action. True, the original trial court ruled for the DOJ, the plaintiff. However, the findings of the trial court were overturned on appeal and remanded for retrial. The suit was then settled prior to trial. So essentially, the contention that Microsoft has been found "guilty" of anything in a court of law is not supported by the cite.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

Heh - I think I hafta go build a framing clamp... :-D
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's head....the market place clearly chose his products. His competitors for many years were all well larger, better placed and better funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......To think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple ignorance. Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive PC business. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Rod;
It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they say is history.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more effective). PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise. Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Either way, if IBM had ended up with the code the only real long term difference in the computer market would be that everybody hated Gary Kildall instead of Bill Gates, because it was intended to be a CP/M machine from the outset and the only reason it wasn't was that Digital Research (which, for those who think I'm talking about the outfit that made VAXen, was a different company from Digital Equipment) didn't get their OS on the machine as the default was that somehow they managed to tick off IBM enough for IBM to seek a second source (there are many stories concerning what specific action set them off).

There wasn't any hardware in an IBM PC that needed "cracking". What Compaq did was write a clone of the ROM-BIOS program that did not infringe IBM's copyright.
If IBM had really wanted to keep the PC proprietary they would have used their own OS and processor (they had a single-chip 370 running in the laboratory, and they had their own 32-bit multiuser multitasking virtual-memory protected mode operating system in commercial production long before the first IBM PC shipped) instead of farming it out to some hole in the wall.
They saw what was happening in the microcomputer market and the PC was an attempt to cash in on it on the cheap--the prototype PC was pretty much built from the parts bin for the System 25, which had been a big flop.

Which was more effective is debatable. Once they split the code base, PC DOS was generally tighter code.

Well, actually it was NT that set the stage for the WIN95 knockout--the only reason Windows 95 ever existed was to induce developers to start writing code for WIN32.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.