#FIGHT BACK!
58 messages in this thread
C'mon, Jerry! If no one wasted time trying to change the unchangeable we'd
still be counting rocks …
DJ
Flying high on Autopilot and French Dark Roast,
From Queens, where the ice cream truck plays Helter Skelter …
" If no one wasted time trying to change the unchangeable we'd still be
counting rocks …"
Now that just ain't so. Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much
hope of success.
Jerry
"Now that just ain't so. Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much
hope of success."
Your taking that a bit to literally.
I'll say it another way. If it weren't for the dreamers, we wouldn't have come
down from the trees and we wouldn't be advancing now.
OS/2, The OS closest OS to AmigaDOS.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
"If it weren't for the dreamers, we wouldn't have come down from the trees and
we wouldn't be advancing now."
Bob:
Don't forget that a lot of those "dreamers" were just plain nuts, crackpots
and a hundred other things.
I'm all for imagination, but some schemes are just unworkable to begin with –
and the idea of Amiga machine owners somehow influencing the liquidation
process is one of them. It's a matter of law now and only the creditors (and
maybe at some point the shareholders) have any standing to influence the
procedure.
Commodore fans had a chance to show their devotion at a much earlier point in
time by purchasing new computers. Large numbers of them didn't and the company
collapsed.
It's kind of late in the game for a group without even a hint of legal
standing to somehow believe they could influence the process. There'd be a
better chance of turning a pumpkin into a coach. <G>
Jerry
No guts…No glory…
"No guts…No glory…"
Guts don't win wars. Minds do.
Jerry
You mean "devious minds", don't you?
DJ
"You mean "devious minds", don't you?"
I don't believe that's true. Smart minds win wars though. (sometimes.)
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
"Don't forget that a lot of those "dreamers" were just plain nuts, crackpots
and a hundred other things."
I'm one of those dreamers…
"I'm all for imagination, but some schemes are just unworkable to begin with –
and the idea of Amiga machine owners somehow influencing the liquidation
process is one of them."
I'm also somewhat of a realist, and agree with this.
"Commodore fans had a chance to show their devotion at a much earlier point in
time by purchasing new computers. Large numbers of them didn't and the company
collapsed."
Not so sure about this one. The cause of a lack of sales is more the Microsoft
dominance than ANYTHING else. (And the way that MS became dominant.)
"It's kind of late in the game for a group without even a hint of legal
standing to somehow believe they could influence the process. There'd be a
better chance of turning a pumpkin into a coach. <G>"
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that. After all, I've seen some things
in my liftime that are even wierder than changing a pumkin into a coach.
OS/2, The OS closest OS to AmigaDOS.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
"The cause of a lack of sales is more the Microsoft dominance than ANYTHING
else. (And the way that MS became dominant.)"
Yeah – and I bet that Bill Gates secretly helped Apple sell all their
machines while the Amiga suffered, right? <G>
Sorry, Bob, but I don't buy into the "conspiracy" theory. Commodore had equal
access to all the advertising media, etc., etc. They just didn't have marketing
skills worth a dime, couldn't attract major publishers to the platform, did a
lousy job of getting their dealer network to support them and dozens of other
things all of which helped put them out of business.
Where there was an aggressive third-party with an add-on product that
provided real utility (i.e., Scala, NewTek), the Amiga sold well. People bought
it for the peripheral and couldn't have cared less about what the device ran
on.
Commodore never figured that one out.
Anyway, as far as Commodore owners making a difference, about the only
opportunity they'll ever have in my opinion is to buy new Amigas if and when
another company starts making them.
Jerry
"Yeah – and I bet that Bill Gates secretly helped Apple sell all their machines
while the Amiga suffered, right? <G>"
I don't think so. Besides, what's Gates got to do with Apple? If it weren't
for MS, Apple would be stronger too.
"Sorry, Bob, but I don't buy into the "conspiracy" theory. Commodore had equal
access to all the advertising media, etc., etc."
Who said anything about a conspiracy… I lot of factors went into the making
of Microsoft, and a lot went into the dying of other platforms too.
Your right, C= probably could sell water to a thirsty mob. Gates did a real
good job of marketing in the beginning, that's how MS got so big.
My only gripes with MS, are what they did after they became the dominant
platform.
"Anyway, as far as Commodore owners making a difference, about the only
opportunity they'll ever have in my opinion is to buy new Amigas if and when
another company starts making them."
I'll be first in line, as I'm itching for a more expandable Amiga. 🙂
OS/2, The OS closest OS to AmigaDOS.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Jerry:
>> Sorry, Bob, but I don't buy into the "conspiracy" theory.
I don't think he is refering to any "conspiracy" theory. He's refering to the
documented criminal practices that Microsoft used to achieve market dominance.
The FTC and DOJ investigated Microsoft, charged them, then settled the case
without a trial. Now a federal judge has rejected the settlement because it
wasn't "in the public interest." Sooner or later, Microsoft may have to go to
court and face the possibility of extremely bad publicity and very stiff
penalties. Plus, if Judge Sporkin's ruling stands, they may be faced with a
flood of civil actions as well. Considering how smug Mr. Gates has been about
all this, I hope he gets creamed!
Anyway, I believe copies of the Microsoft/DOJ settlement and Judge Sporkin's
ruling are available for download in the Canopus forum. It's rather
interesting stuff. All I can say is that regardless of what happens to the
Amiga, I will be avoiding anything with the Microsoft label until they learn to
compete on product merit rather than marketing prowess and clearly
anti-competitive practices.
Wayne
"He's refering to the documented criminal practices that Microsoft used to
achieve market dominance."
To the best of my knowledge, Wayne, no one at the Justice Department has ever
accused Microsoft of *criminal* violations of any anti-trust or other law. If
you have some credible source that indicates otherwise, I'd be very interesting
in seeing it.
In regard to Judge Sporkins ruling, it's good to see a truly independent
jurist on the bench. In my opinion, the Microsoft/Justice settlement was a
whitewash engineered by Bill Clinton in return for campaign contributions.
"We'll pretend to investigate you and you pretend to agree to a settlement"
is the operative scenario here. A first year law student could have found
mountains of evidence indicating anti-competitive behavior on Microsoft's part
and I'm pleased to see the Judge basically say so. But none of that behavior
was criminal.
I've done business with Microsoft and in my opinion, every one who works
there leaves their sense of ethics and honesty at the front door. I would,
however, work with them again: I'd just draw the contracts more tightly and
budget for litigation. That's the only thing those people understand,
especially since the Stac decision. (They really ought to erect a statue to
Stac's President for having the guts to fight them.)
And, by the way, the chances are high that Sporkin's ruling will fail on
appeal. But at least the guy deserves credit for sending a strong message to
both Bills, Hillary, Jane and Janet that their BS isn't flying.
Jerry
<But none of that behavior was criminal.>
Wrong…OS2 and Windows are both criminal and should never have been made.
<BG>
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
Jerry,
The only problem with your reasoning is that the investigation of
possible anti-competitive practices against Microsoft began before the Clinton
administration. So the "we'll pretend to investigate you.." theory doesn't
wash.
Don
"The only problem with your reasoning is that the investigation of possible
anti-competitive practices against Microsoft began before the Clinton
administration. So the "we'll pretend to investigate you.." theory doesn't
wash."
The Federal Trade Commission closed out its investigation with a decision not
to prosecute. The Clinton Justice Department did something very unusual and
picked up the investigation after the FTC took a no-action vote. And it was the
Clinton Justice Department that reached the "settlement" with Microsoft.
Jerry
Howard Armstrong, a noted engineer, said of lawyers "They substitute words
for reality, then argue about the words." RCA really shafted him.:(
MOS via Autopilot & Amiga
Jerry:
>> …no one at the Justice Department has ever accused Microsoft of
*criminal* violations of any anti-trust or other law.
Perhaps my choice of the word "criminal" was a bit harsh. However, I do
believe that some Microsoft practices – especially their OEM preload agreements
– were considered to be in violation of anti-trust law. Wasn't that the whole
reason for the settlement in the first place?
>> In my opinion, the Microsoft/Justice settlement was a whitewash engineered
by Bill Clinton in return for campaign contributions.
I share that opinion. I've encountered several others who do as well. American
government at its finest…
>> …every one who works [at Microsoft] leaves their sense of ethics and
honesty at the front door.
Probably true.
>> …the chances are high that Sporkin's ruling will fail on appeal.
Agreed. After all, I think Gates has Reno and Clinton in his pocket. The fix
is in at the whitehouse.
Wayne
Actually, I think it was considered anti-competitive, not anti-trust. Like
many others I would like to see Microsoft scaled back or split into independent
businesses. I don't see them as monoliths, but as extraordinary marketers who
allow others to plough the ground and then swoop in and eat the crop . . . kind
of like crows in a farmer's field. I'd like to see the operating system
business split off from the packaged products and the two units forced to do
their own marketing. I suspect that would temper their growth somewhat.
Jerry
Jerry:
I think we're in agreement. It will be interesting to see just what, if
anything, is done to Microsoft.
Wayne
Yup, Stac had the guts to fight them, and then they turned around and
"invested" in Stac, and "cross Liscensed" everything. Wanna bet where
Stac is in 5 years…
What MS can beatm they pirate or buy. Kinda ironic that MS spends lots of
money on anit piracy campaigns, and then gets hit for millions for dollars
for stealing Stac's code.
"Wanna bet where
Stac is in 5 years…"
If the stockholders and principals walk away with plenty of bucks in their
pockets, I don't think they'll be looking back.
Jerry
No problem for the principals and share holders to be sure. However, the
end result for the consumer is just that much less innovation and choice
in the marketplace.
Microsoft is probably close to rich enough to buy out all the other
developers for the IBM machines. While those folks could walk away with a
jingle in their jeans, the rest of us would all be the poorer for it.
Additionally they may not walk away with plenty of bucks. After MS sucks
all the technology out of the company, and then leaves them on the short
end of the stick, they may have to walk away.
Wayne,
Your comment about 'documented criminal practices' is untrue. First,
there was never a charge of criminal practices. There was concern for
anti-competitive practices and an investigation ensued. The FTC failed to
conclude that Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive practices. Based on
the concerns of some companies…an agreement was reached between the DOJ and
Microsoft whereby they agreed to modify some of Microsoft's behavior so that
issue wouldn't keep re-surfacing.
Judge Sporkin's decision is on man's decision based on a brief filed by
some of Microsoft's competitors. Both Microsoft and the Justice Department
disagree with his decision and legal steps are being taken to have it
nullified.
I've read most of the comments and briefs that are available here on
CompuServe. The vast majority of the claim is inuendo and extrapolation of the
fact that Microsoft is a master at marketing into something being wrong with
that.
One of the biggest complaints was pre-announcements. Yes, Microsoft
has done that, and I'm sure they've done it in an attempt to head off
competition. If that's illegal…then just about every company is guilty.
Let's see…Borland announced products for the Amiga in 1985 that still haven't
seen the light of day. Word Perfect announced upgrades to the Amiga version
that they later dropped. IBM announced a stand-alone version of OS/2 with
Win32 built in (no need for Windows also) that was 6 to 9 months late actually
getting to the market. And yes, a year and a half ago, Microsoft announced
that the latest Windows (now called Windows 95) would be available within a few
months…and it's not expected for another 6 months yet.
Big deal. The fact is, the vast majority of DP shops moved to Windows
because back when there was a choice, OS/2 was far buggier than Windows was.
That's why we did that at work. And we won't switch, even if OS/2 is currently
better…because of the cost. The cost/benefit ratio isn't worth it. Windows
does what we want, has the software available and any bugs are not sufficient
for us to worry about.
Using the logic stated in the briefs, IBM and Microsoft conspired years
ago to wipe out Digital Research when IBM picked Microsoft to write their OS
rather than CP/M. For whatever reason, the market chose IBM (and thus
Microsoft DOS) over CP/M machines.
That wasn't a conspiracy…that was a business decision made by IBM to
make a single choice in OS rather than a group of possible OS's for it's
machine (and every manufacturer has done that). The fact that CP/M couldn't
make a dent in the OS market after that (and back then…the OS was a separate
purchase from the hardware)..was pure competition.
IBM/MS-DOS/Windows/Microsoft (etc.) "won" the computer wars because
they had the right combination of ingredients that the public wanted (or
believed they wanted) at the right time. That includes price, reputation,
useablity, software…the whole range of things people felt they needed.
Apple could just have easily been the winner (or anyone else for that
fact)…but they made some (in hindsight) bad decisions about pricing and
openness of their systems that turned the public away (relatively speaking,
obviously 10% of the people bought them).
So while we (and I'm included in this group) may not like it that a
compeitor is the guy on top of the heap…it's no conspiracy…it's marketing,
pure and simple. Gates is a master at marketing, he's proved it time and time
again that he can sense what needs to be done to get people to want his
products…and he does it.
Don
Don:
I stand corrected on the "criminal practices" comment. However, I believe
Microsoft's OEM preload agreements were considered illegal. Even if they
weren't, they clearly reflected anti-competitive behaviour.
Since I have almost no knowledge of law, it is very possible for me to
misinterpret some of the data I've read on the DOJ/Microsoft case. However,
that doesn't in any way change my personal opinion of Microsoft as a company.
I honestly don't believe they became the market leader – especially in the
operating system arena – by virtue of superior products. I believe they did it
with hype, luck, and – legal or not – predatory practices. I believe they have
pressured ISV's to and OEM's to carry the Windows flag. Finally, I believe
they have pre-announced products (WinNT and Win95) 18+ months in advance for
the sole purpose of freezing the market. I know, I know… It's not what I
believe, it's what I can prove that matters. All I can say is Bill Gates is no
dummy. He's covered his tracks very well.
As for Judge Sporking's ruling, I am aware of the DOJ/Microsoft appeal.
Regardless of the outcome, I side with the Judge because I believe he did the
right thing. Mr. Gates is on record as saying that – beyond the fact that
someone in legal would have to read it – the settlement wouldn't change one
thing at Microsoft. In other words, he admitted it was a "sweetheart" deal.
What an arrogant ass…
On another point, you say Gates is a master of marketing. I say he is a master
of getting the trade press to reprint his press releases (drivel) nearly
verbatim. Not the same thing, IMHO.
In summary, I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe any of this is a
conspiracy. I simply don't believe in Microsoft's business ethics regardless
of their legality. For that reason, I do not buy any products they sell. As a
consumer, that's the only weapon I have.
Wayne
P.S. By the time Windows 95 ships, it will have been almost two years since
the product was announced. That'll be a new record for the beloved market
"leader."
"In summary, I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe any of this is a
conspiracy. I simply don't believe in Microsoft's business ethics regardless
of their legality. For that reason, I do not buy any products they sell. As a
consumer, that's the only weapon I have."
Same here.
btw, Apple was the company that had filed the document that said that Gates/MS
threatened them into licensing their GUI, as well as the latest try to get
Apple to drop OpenDOC. Apple's getting bolder these days 🙂 To bad I don't
like their OS…
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
Bob:
>> …as well as the latest try to get Apple to drop OpenDOC.
In favor of what? OLE2? Microsoft must be kidding! Not only that, but they
must be nervous. Consumers are getting smarter about computer technology these
days. That means they will start seeing through all the hype and recognizing
superior solutions. Microsoft doesn't know how to compete on those terms.
Wayne
Wayne,
I ageee that in the beginning it was pure luck, and a bit of marketing
skill, that put MS-DOS on IBM PC's rather than CP/M. And, since Gates was able
to keep a separate marketing agreement for "MS-DOS" (vs PC-DOS) so it could be
sold to other than IBM was a brilliant move by Gates.
And I agree that because IBM was "the computer company"…it added
legitimacy (sp?) to the personal computer market…and they very quickly became
the defacto standard…on the strength of the three letters "I B M" alone.
I agree that Gates pre-announced products in order to head off
competition…but so did lots of others.
I agree that MicroSoft's practice of charging a per CPU fee for
pre-loaded software (cost per ALL cpu's sold by the manufacturer, not just
those that had the software included) was a LARGE incentive to include the OS
on all machines.
But..what hammer did Microsoft have to force manufacturers to agree to
those terms? Where is it written that the CPU has to come with the OS
included? Nothing…except *competitive* pressure from other manufacturers.
As I noted before, you bought the CPU and then had to also buy the OS
as a separate purchase. Some manufacturers, in order to gain a competitive
advantage for their machines…started to bundle the OS with the machine…and
the public bought those machines rather than those where you had to buy the OS
separately.
And so…public pressure to buy bundles is what caused the
manufacturers to bargin with OS vendors (there are only two) to license the
software for pre-loads.
The law of supply and demand took over. Microsoft had the supply and
the public demanded. So Microsoft made the best deal they could…is that
wrong? Doesn't every business try to maximize their profits?
Don
Don:
>> Where is it written that the CPU has to come with the OS included?
Nothing…except *competitive* pressure from other manufacturers.
I don't think that's completely accurate. The preload agreement in question
stated that in order to get OEM pricing on DOS/Windows, OEM's had to pay for a
license of DOS/Windows on every box they sold. It didn't matter if the
customer wanted it or not. In other words, if I called Dell or Gateway and
asked them to preload OS/2 on my system, they'd have two choices: 1) Honor my
request, charge me for OS/2 instead of DOS/Windows, and pay Microsoft for a
DOS/Windows license that I didn't purchase. 2) Deny my request, send me the
thing with DOS/Windows on it, and tell me to load my own OS. Profit margins
being what they were, most OEM's chose option two. Even if I ordered my system
with *no* OS installed (which many OEM's refuse to offer, BTW), they still
would have had to pay Microsoft for a DOS/Windows license that they couldn't
charge me for. I don't care how you slice it, an agreement like that is
anti-competitive.
As a consumer who likes to make my own decisions, I am sick and tired of the
computer industry telling me what I do and do not need. If I want a PC with no
OS installed, I should be able to get it. If I want a PC with OS/2 installed,
I should be able to get it. I'm the customer, remember? Microsoft's tactics to
get OEM's to dictate to me what I have to buy make me sick. Mr. Gates, it
won't work! I will not buy your products!! If you think I'm alone, you better
look again. Even Windows magazine recently had an article about how
Microsoft's marketing tactics are starting to backfire. Many people are sick of
it.
Wayne
Unfortunately you neglected to mention Microsoft policies such as charging
each vendor a fee for every machine sold, whether or not MS Dos when with
it. (Thus "helping" the vendor "decide on a single OS".)
Also that MS uses undocumented calls to enhance the performance of it's
products, and then uses other companies when they try to sue them also.
(See MS countersuit against Stac.)
Anyone who thinks that MS is merely dominant because it out markets its
rivals, and/or because it provides superior products, is dead wrong.
Unless you consider charging the standard liscensing fee for MS Dos for
every machine shipped with DR Dos, a "marketing tool".
Alex,
And what other choice did the vendors have in the way of an OS?
Technically ,there were 3 OS vendors…IBM, Microsoft and Digital
Research. IBM, back then, didn't sell PC-DOS on other than IBM machines. And
the vast majority of major corporations had no interest in DR-DOS since it
wasn't "official"
Remember, the mentality was no one got fired for buying an IBM back
then…and buying an IBM also meant the IBM operating system PC-DOS or MS-DOS
depending on where you bought it.
I NEVER said that Microsoft products were superior. I said they were
brilliant marketers.
As to the un-documented calls to the OS…perhaps, I don't know how
true that allegation is.
Don
One of the biggest problems with MS, to use an analogy, is that they not only
are a major car manufacturer and seller (apps), but they make and control the
highway (Windows). Their apps can drive the OS design when it's convenient to
them, and can know about OS features well in advance of the competition, not to
mention the old "undocumented calls that nobody else knows about" feature.
DJ
DJ,
They don't control the OS. You are quite free to go out and buy
PC-DOS, DR-DOS, UNIX, LINUX, OS/2, etc.
As to the taking advantage of undocumented calls…I've yet to see
proof of that allegation.
Don
>You are quite free to gout out and buy PC-DOS, DR-DOS…
As long as you already paid for MS-DOS, since you pretty much can't buy a PC
without it, thanks to MS's anti-competitive pricing structure which prevents
vendors from cost-effectively offering alternatives even if they do think that
there is demand for them.
>undocumented calls
Have you looked for that proof? My understanding was that dissecting MS apps
revealed the undocumented calls in the first place, but I have to admit I
wasn't following it closely when it was a big deal.
dale@iam.com http://www.iam.com
Intangible Assets Manufacturing
As for proof of undocumented calls, I suggest you educate yourself on the
MS versus Stac court battle. Stac looked into the way that Microsoft
implemented their disk comression utility. They found a preloader that
loaded the compression utility prior to the loading of Dos. They then
used the hooks to enable the preloading of their software. Along the way
they found that Microsoft has used their technology to compress their
disks.
So they sued Microsoft and won, and Microsoft counter sued them, and won.
(On the order of 10% if the judgement against Stac, but still crowed about
their "victory" in the trade papers, not mentioning their larger loss to
Stac.)
Or do you also need "proof" that Microsoft got caught stealing code?
Apple has the same potential to fall on its face just as CBM did. It
wouldn't take much for a couple of their executives to make the wrong
decision's sending them into a downward spiral. And a lot of the same
forces that caused CBM to crash are hurting the Mac market as well.
// John (Warp 4040 & Emplant Quadra 840)
\X/ Mercury@ins.infonet.net
I think Apple is well on its way to oblivion. Have you noticed that their
claim of staying price competitive with the PowerPC's has been largely
forgotten? A PowerMac 8100/100 costs about twice as much right now as a Pentium
90. While Apple has managed to turn in a couple of strong quarters recently in
terms of units shipped, they continue to lose market share.
We run something more than a dozen machines here, mostly Mac's. But with only
rare exception, we'll be buying Pentiums in the future. There's simply no
compelling reason any more to prefer Mac. Windows 95, OS/2 and WindowsNT all
deliver far greater capabilities than the Mac OS and the machines are less
expensive.
No sense in staying with yesterday's favorite.
Jerry
Jerry:
>> There's simply no compelling reason any more to prefer Mac. Windows 95,
OS/2 and WindowsNT all deliver far greater capabilities than the Mac OS and the
machines are less expensive.
I've recently spent a lot of time with MacOS, WinNT, and OS/2. My conclusion
is similar to yours. While I always thought the Mac would be my next platform
if the Amiga died, I've since decided it will be OS/2.
Wayne
At this point, I'm sticking with Win95. The last two betas have been
extremely stable. In fact, I am now running Win95 permanently on one of our
production machines.
The interface is incredibly slick, a far cry from the clumsiness of Windows
3.1 and in some ways surpassing the Macintosh in terms of user interface.
I never succeeded in getting OS/2 Warp to run properly and there's no help
from IBM's tech support. So the heck with it.
Next step for me is loading WindowsNT.
In any event, after ten years I've broken the Macintosh habit. If only giving
up cigarettes were as easy. <G>
Jerry
Jerry:
>> I never succeeded in getting OS/2 Warp to run properly…
That's too bad. Warp is a great operating system once you get the kinks worked
out. While I agree that Win95 is a lot nicer than Win3x, I like OS/2 better.
Besides, I don't want to run an Intel box for very long. OS/2 for PowerPC is
coming, Win95 isn't. To each his own…
Wayne
Jerry,
The comment about no tech support for Warp has me puzzled. One of my cohorts at
work has Warp at home. We have OS/2 2.1 at work. I've heard her spending alot
of time on the phone with IBM techs about Warp (actually about things I thought
sounded kinda silly) and that's her 'home' license, not work.
Hmmm.
Robb
Jerry, one of my most eager questions concerning Win95 is, if you open up a DOS
box and copy or format a floppy, does the rest of the system slow down to a
death crawl? Try it and let us know. I'm curious. BTW, are you running
16-bit apps? Can you run 32-bit apps? Thanks.
DJ
I think it's time to call in George Romero to direct this plot. All I have to
say is, my Amigas may be dead, but they're still warm!
DJ
"my Amigas may be dead, but they're still warm!"
Same here, though I only use one of them right now. 🙂
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA
>>Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much hope of success. <<
Not true. it can be done. It just takes an incredible amount of energy. 🙂
">>Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much hope of success. <<
Not true. it can be done. It just takes an incredible amount of energy."
Please send me the names and addresses of the folks doing it. I'd like to
dive in their dumpsters. <G>
Jerry
I didn't say it was being done, I said it *could* be done 🙂
> Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much hope of success.
>Jerry
We have already perfected the process of changing lead to gold using
subatomic particle bombardment to raise the atomic weight of atoms,
however it costs $10,000 per ounce of gold created…:}
Grant Boucher
1 of 2 Supervising Animators :} – Star Trek: Voyager – Amblin Imaging
"however it costs $10,000 per ounce of gold created"
No problem. We can make it up on volume. <G>
Jerry
<<Folks trying to change lead into gold don't have much hope of success.>>
I disagree. Look what Gates has accomplised.
-Richard
"Look what Gates has accomplised."
I do. With envy. Something on the order of between 60 and 90 million people
use Microsoft products every day to get their work done. They are the market
leaders in operating systems, word processing and spreadsheets. And they are
laggards in many other fields.
Microsoft hasn't pulled the wool over the eyes of these millions. They're all
free to choose and use other products – and many do. Heck, WordPerfect's
Macintosh sales have skyrocketed since Microsoft Word 6.0 for the Mac was
introduced. It's a real dog.
Personally I think Microsoft is the most amoral company in the computer
business – with Apple a close second. But that opinion doesn't lead me to brand
their products as universally deficient. I use them everyday – although I
stopped using Microsoft Word 6 for the Mac within two days of loading it. It's
a real dog.
Jerry
That's right, Jer, and one didn't have to be a commie back when in Russia
either. One could opt for special assignment in Siberia. For some strange
reason most prefered to remain commies …
DJ
That's selling s**t as shinola with the proper packaging, which is very
different …
DJ
Actually, it is now possible to change lead into gold. However, the
linear accelerator and other associated equipment required for the task,
vs the miniscule ouput of gold that could be realised, would leave the
venture unprofitable.
(Starting to sound the like the Amiga revival sceneraio doesn't it….)
You don't have to change lead into gold. You just have to convince the people
that you have…I.E. Windows and OS2…<G>
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
"(Starting to sound the like the Amiga revival sceneraio doesn't it….)"
Sure is. <G>
Jerry
Oh, yeah? How do you know for sure if you don't keep trying? Huh? Just don't
quit your day job, is all … B)
DJ
"C'mon, Jerry! If no one wasted time trying to change the unchangeable we'd
still be counting rocks …"
Well said!
OS/2, The OS closest OS to AmigaDOS.
Bob Comer — Cheyenne, WY USA