🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NC_%n.12436$wm1.9572@newsfe01.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > zune's market share is in the single digits (2% in 2009), while ipods
> > are around 70%. it's a dismal failure.
> 
>      The only thing that would make it a failure is if they're 
> making money from it. 

do you have any data that shows that zune is making a profit? didn't
think so.

> OS X makes up about 3% of the worldwide 
> market share of computers. Is OS X/The Mac a dismal failure 
> because of the tiny market share? It's all about what's making 
> profits.

apple is *very* profitable.

In article <UP_%n.36625$Ls1.22532@newsfe11.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>      What does this have to do with someone paying for Vista to 
> get fixed? I seem to remember that when people didn't like 
> features of Vista, MS didn't try to hide it.

yes they did. steve ballmer said vista was a huge success.

> I also know that 
> when Windows has a security issue, MS comes out with a fix and 
> doesn't try to hide the fact.

bullshit.

> I know that when Apple decided to 
> include a malware scanner in their OS, they tried to keep it a 
> secret.

apple did not include a malware scanner.

what they did was block two specific trojans that the user needed to
install for anything to happen (and provide the admin password), just
in case a user was stupid enough to do that (which sadly, there are).

> Now with this antenna problem on the iPhone, they tried 
> to hide it by saying it didn't exist. 

nope, they admitted it early on.

> They actually took down 
> threads about it on Apple's forums. This is very shady. 

they took down *some* threads, ones which turned into flame fests.

> To 
> compound problems, it looks like Jobs knew of the problem before 
> release but gave it the green light anyway. 

that's been refuted too, both by apple and other sources.

> This could be 
> leading to a drop in consumer confidence and could hurt Apple's 
> profits. I don't think it will though because Apple has these 
> idiot cultists that will defend Apple no matter what and buy 
> anything Apple puts out. They won't even try it first.

30 days to return it. most have not. 
> 
>      I'm going to see how Jobs addresses these issues. Will Jobs 
> apologize? Will he offer free stuff? I hope he doesn't announce 
> he's suing Consumer Reports and Whoopi Goldberg.

he did apologize and offered free cases.

In article <4T_%n.36626$Ls1.8958@newsfe11.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>       Do you remember when Microsoft bailed out Apple with money 
> to keep them from going out of business?

nonsense. microsoft bought 150 million dollars of nonvoting apple
stock, which was a drop in the bucket for apple at the time, who had
something like a billion dollars in *cash* (i don't remember exact
figures but that's in the ballpark).

the reason microsoft *had* to do that was because they were caught
redhanded for violating apple intellectual property and infringing on
patents. that was the out of court settlement.

it's ludicrous to think that microsoft bailed them out.

In article <6n31469c0bgd3npf0arf3fe9cvjuf5mcod@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >>      I guess this is why Windows has become the obscure failure 
> >> it is today...
> >
> >Monopolies are good that way.
> 
> It became dominant (not a monopoly) because it's good.

no, it was because of predatory business practices and abuse of
monopoly. see united states v. microsoft.

In article <bF00o.12448$wm1.10159@newsfe01.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>     I also find that some Mac/OS X users feel that anyone who 
> says something bad about Apple or it's products, must hate Apple 
> with a purple passion. Some of these Mac users seem to develop a 
> personal issue with anyone who criticizes anything about Apple.

nonsense.

it's the bullshit claims, such as yours that microsoft bailed out
apple, that people take issue with.

On 16/07/10 8:47 PM, John Slade wrote:

<snip>

> But I still don't see the OS X market share growing.

OS-X market share is stagnant, actually falling slightly because Windows 
7 is so popular. But when you add iPad sales into the Apple mix as a 
computer (rather than in the category of web pad/media player) then 
Apple's market share is growing, but not the OS-X market share. The 
question is where should those iPad sales be counted? Is the iPad a 
large iPod Touch based on its capabilities and software base, or should 
it be included, like a netbook, in the computer market share numbers. 
What about the iPod Touch? Since it runs most of the same apps as the 
iPad maybe it should be considered a UPC rather than a music player/PDS.

In article <4c413f11$0$22182$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > But I still don't see the OS X market share growing.
> 
> OS-X market share is stagnant, actually falling slightly because Windows 
> 7 is so popular.

it's growing.

> But when you add iPad sales into the Apple mix as a 
> computer (rather than in the category of web pad/media player) then 
> Apple's market share is growing, but not the OS-X market share.

the ipad runs os x, but not mac os x.

> The question is where should those iPad sales be counted? Is the iPad a 
> large iPod Touch based on its capabilities and software base, or should 
> it be included, like a netbook, in the computer market share numbers. 

it's a tablet, not a netbook and it's quite a bit more than a big ipod
touch.

> What about the iPod Touch? Since it runs most of the same apps as the 
> iPad maybe it should be considered a UPC rather than a music player/PDS.

not really.

On 7/16/2010 9:40 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<KJ90o.17596$0A5.15709@newsfe22.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>
>>> look at apple's sales numbers. they keep going up and up and they are
>>> outpacing the market as a whole.
>>
>>          But I still don't see the OS X market share growing.
>
> as i said before, apple's sales are outpacing the market itself, which
> means their market share is growing.
>
> here's another, from over two years ago:
> <http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9839886-16.html>
>
>    Mac's market share growth is 'nothing short of spectacular'
>
>    Web analyst Net Applications now puts the Mac's market share at 8
>    percent, up from 5.3 percent in early 2007. That is stunning growth
>    by any measure, especially when you consider that this is 18 percent
>    growth in its market share...just since November 2007.
>
> apple outgrew the market in 14 of the last 15 quarters, the only one
> they didn't was during the intel transition.
> <http://techthoughts.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/apple-laptop-event-0
> 11.jpg>
>

         Yea it WAS spectacular back in 2007. But it seems the 
worldwide share is still where it was. Bear in mind that OS X 
market share is what we're talking about since Macs run Windows 
now. Here is the same data but much more recent.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11

         Here's another one for you if you still have trouble 
understanding.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

          Does that clear it up any?

>> Just for the record, Macs are now part of the PC market share.
>> We're talking OS usage here. It would seem that many of these
>> people who are buying Macs are running Windows at leas part of
>> the time. I always said that when Apple started making clones
>> their sales would go up.
>
> ignoring the fact you have no evidence of whether someone runs os x
> exclusively or not, so what if they run windows part of the time? that
> means that they run os x the rest of the time.

     So all we can go on is sales of Macs and OS usage from the 
same sources. The sales figures show Apple isn't even in the top 
five computer makers in worldwide sales.


>
>>>>           That 91% of computers over $1000 is a very small segment
>>>> of the market.
>>>
>>> actually it's a significant part of the market.
>>
>>       No it's not. The vast majority of computers sold are not
>> over $1000.
>
> cite a source to back up your claim.

       As soon as you cite a source that shows most computers 
cost more than $1000. I mean you saw the actual sales figures 
and you're still trying to spin this?

>
>>        Complete horse shit. Amazon represents a tiny portion of
>> all computer sales.
>
> maybe so but it's a good indication of what's selling and what isn't.

       No it's not, actual sales figures compiled from the 
computer makers themselves is the indicator.

>
>> I suggest you look at HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo
>> and ASUS sales.
>
> where does it say that the vast majority of computers are under $1000?
>
>> http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22421910
>>
>>         This clearly shows that Apple is not even in the top five
>> in worldwide computer sales. And the growth on the list is ASUS
>> at 83.6% growth.
>
> that's entirely due to netbooks.

        But the fact that their growth is phenomenal should tell 
you that Apple's 15% growth in the US is not much. Let me 
explain it to you in simpler terms for you. If a company that 
sells 100 computers a year has 75% growth, it is nothing 
compared to a company that sells 100,000 computers a year an had 
10% growth. Does that clear it up any?
>
>> 91% of the computers costing over $1000 is a
>> tiny portion.
>
> actually it isn't, but more importantly, it's where the profit is. do
> you think asus is making a lot of money selling $200 netbooks?

     OK what percentage of computers sold are over $1000 and are 
sold in brick-and-mortar stores?

>
>> Apple would have to sell many, many more computers
>> to catch any of the big boys. For them to capture significant OS
>> X market share, they have to convince people that OS X is better
>> to have around than Windows XP/Vista/7.
>
> and they're doing exactly that, as their sales numbers show.

     I've shown you they don't show that.

>
>> Since relatively very
>> few games and applications are produced for OS X(excluding UNIX
>> software), it's no wonder OS X has seen minuscule gains.
>
> why exclude unix software? one huge advantage of os x is that all linux
> and other unix software runs *natively* alongside all mac software, and
> also alongside all windows software with vmware. that means a mac can
> run far more software than a pc can, all on the same box.

      If you're bringing VMware into it, then you have to 
include Linux and Unix on Windows systems as well. I'm talking 
native Windows vs. native OS X software.

>
>>        Now if this info doesn't sink in, you'll never understand.
>
> and you'll believe what you want to believe, regardless if the facts
> show otherwise.

      I have the actual sales data to back me up. You have 
nothing but sales figures from a tiny portion of the computer 
market.

John

On 7/16/2010 10:26 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 16/07/10 8:47 PM, John Slade wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But I still don't see the OS X market share growing.
>
> OS-X market share is stagnant, actually falling slightly because Windows
> 7 is so popular. But when you add iPad sales into the Apple mix as a
> computer (rather than in the category of web pad/media player) then
> Apple's market share is growing, but not the OS-X market share. The
> question is where should those iPad sales be counted? Is the iPad a
> large iPod Touch based on its capabilities and software base, or should
> it be included, like a netbook, in the computer market share numbers.
> What about the iPod Touch? Since it runs most of the same apps as the
> iPad maybe it should be considered a UPC rather than a music player/PDS.

     I would have trouble incuding the iPad since it runs on 
iPhone OS. If you include the iPad you would have to include all 
smarphones. In one of the charts I posted they do include iPhone 
numbers and it comes to less than 1%.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

John

On 7/16/2010 9:01 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:05:05 -0700, in<i1r6l0$1q7$2@speranza.aioe.org>,
> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> David Kaye wrote:
>>> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, viability doesn't *just* mean financial status.  [....]
>>>
>>> Put whatever spin on it you like, but Apple was down in the dumps when
>>> Microsoft came along and invested in it.  The root of the term "viable" means
>>> "life", and without financial stability there is no life to a company.
>>
>> All of this is true, but it doesn't mean Apple wasn't viable without
>> Microsoft.  The deal with Microsoft made apple MORE viable.  The key to
>> this deal was the agreement to make software for Macs, not the financial
>> investment which was quite small (~10%) compared to Apple's ample cash
>> reserves of over 1 billion dollars.
>
> "Microsoft to invest $150 million in Apple"
>
> Microsoft is lending Apple Computer an unexpected and somewhat
> controversial helping hand.
>
> Microsoft chairman Bill Gates said today As the Macworld turns that the
> software giant will invest $150 million in Apple and will develop and
> ship future versions of its Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, and
> development tools for the Macintosh.
>
> Gates, who appeared via satellite link, and Apple director Steve Jobs
> made the announcement here today at the Macworld Expo trade show.
>
> Both Apple and Microsoft executives denied that the Microsoft investment
> represents a path to converging the companies' operating systems.
> However, they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a
> long-standing dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system
> infringes on any of Apple's patents.
>
> More important, Microsoft said it has pledged to offer the Office
> business productivity software suite for the Macintosh platform for the
> next five years. Mac Office 98 is expected to debut by the end of the
> year.
>
> "This deal strengthens Apple's viability. It's a new era in terms of
> Apple and Microsoft working together," said Apple chief financial
> officer Fred Anderson, who has been assigned to run the company's daily
> operations until a successor to outgoing CEO Gilbert Amelio is found.
>
> MORE:<http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html>
>

        I gave up on trying to explain anything to JC Dill. Keep 
trying though.

John

In article <Whc0o.29891$dx7.18165@newsfe21.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>          Here's another one for you if you still have trouble 
> understanding.
> 
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
> 
>           Does that clear it up any?

that shows os x is growing. thanks for proving my point.

>      So all we can go on is sales of Macs and OS usage from the 
> same sources. The sales figures show Apple isn't even in the top 
> five computer makers in worldwide sales.

what that doesn't tell you is that a lot of third world countries don't
buy macs.

now go look at usa market share or europe. worldwide doesn't mean all
that much.

> >>       No it's not. The vast majority of computers sold are not
> >> over $1000.
> >
> > cite a source to back up your claim.
> 
>        As soon as you cite a source that shows most computers 
> cost more than $1000. I mean you saw the actual sales figures 
> and you're still trying to spin this?

so you don't have anything to refute it. got it.

> >>        Complete horse shit. Amazon represents a tiny portion of
> >> all computer sales.
> >
> > maybe so but it's a good indication of what's selling and what isn't.
> 
>        No it's not, actual sales figures compiled from the 
> computer makers themselves is the indicator.

you're forgetting that a lot of those are corporate sales where one guy
is buying 1000 computers in one shot.

apple is weak in that sector, but huge where people buy their own
machines.

like i said, it all depends how you want to count it.

>         But the fact that their growth is phenomenal should tell 
> you that Apple's 15% growth in the US is not much. Let me 
> explain it to you in simpler terms for you. If a company that 
> sells 100 computers a year has 75% growth, it is nothing 
> compared to a company that sells 100,000 computers a year an had 
> 10% growth. Does that clear it up any?

asus growth is due to netbooks, a sector apple does not even
participate! of course it's going to be bigger. duh. 

turn the tables and pick a sector where asus doesn't compete (yet).
apple's tablet sales are much bigger than asus. later this year, asus
will release the eeepad, and asus themselves isn't even predicting
they're going to sell very many.

> >> Since relatively very
> >> few games and applications are produced for OS X(excluding UNIX
> >> software), it's no wonder OS X has seen minuscule gains.
> >
> > why exclude unix software? one huge advantage of os x is that all linux
> > and other unix software runs *natively* alongside all mac software, and
> > also alongside all windows software with vmware. that means a mac can
> > run far more software than a pc can, all on the same box.
> 
>       If you're bringing VMware into it, then you have to 
> include Linux and Unix on Windows systems as well. I'm talking 
> native Windows vs. native OS X software.

which still leaves out mac software. 

let's see how well final cut pro or aperture run on windows.

> > and you'll believe what you want to believe, regardless if the facts
> > show otherwise.
> 
>       I have the actual sales data to back me up. You have 
> nothing but sales figures from a tiny portion of the computer 
> market.

post a link.

On 16/07/10 11:47 PM, John Slade wrote:

<snip>

> I would have trouble incuding the iPad since it runs on iPhone OS. If
> you include the iPad you would have to include all smarphones. In one of
> the charts I posted they do include iPhone numbers and it comes to less
> than 1%.
>
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
>
> John

It's really only an issue to those that are upset about OS-X's market 
share, and interestingly enough, Apple isn't one of those upset. They 
have margins on their hardware that Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc can only 
dream of because Apple can charge premium prices for hardware while the 
Windows systems vendors are in a race to the bottom on prices. Apple 
also never felt the need to compete at the low end where the margins 
really suck. The iPad was a brilliant move, selling for much more than a 
netbook with a bill of materials that's far lower. Those that complain 
that it's "not a real computer" do not understand what drives the 
consumer electronics business.

Apple's opportunity for large market share gains with OS-X on computers 
is over because of Windows 7. There's just no big incentive for Windows 
users to switch anymore especially corporate, commercial, and 
educational users who need to run applications that are not available on 
OS-X, and would have to do dual booting or run Parallels to use Mac 
hardware. Those same users that use Windows at work are unlikely to want 
to have a different OS at home unless they are shown some significant 
advantages, especially given the higher hardware cost of the Apple products.

The transition from "Apple Computer" to just "Apple" shows that the 
company understands that their future success is in achieving commanding 
market positions in high margin consumer products like the iPod, iPad 
and iPhone, as well as selling content.

On 7/17/2010 12:37 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<Whc0o.29891$dx7.18165@newsfe21.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>
>>           Here's another one for you if you still have trouble
>> understanding.
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
>>
>>            Does that clear it up any?
>
> that shows os x is growing. thanks for proving my point.

      No, it shows that back in 2007 they were growing, this 
current chart from the same people show OS X losing market share.

>
>>       So all we can go on is sales of Macs and OS usage from the
>> same sources. The sales figures show Apple isn't even in the top
>> five computer makers in worldwide sales.
>
> what that doesn't tell you is that a lot of third world countries don't
> buy macs.

     What is shows is worldwide sales, doesn't matter who buys what.


>
> now go look at usa market share or europe. worldwide doesn't mean all
> that much.

       Worldwide share is an indicator of the actual market 
share, the US and European markets are not the entire world.


>
>>>>        No it's not. The vast majority of computers sold are not
>>>> over $1000.
>>>
>>> cite a source to back up your claim.
>>
>>         As soon as you cite a source that shows most computers
>> cost more than $1000. I mean you saw the actual sales figures
>> and you're still trying to spin this?
>
> so you don't have anything to refute it. got it.

     I posted an article that showed that the 91% was of a small 
segment of the computer market. That being computer sold in 
brick-and-mortar stores that cost over $1000.

>
>>>>         Complete horse shit. Amazon represents a tiny portion of
>>>> all computer sales.
>>>
>>> maybe so but it's a good indication of what's selling and what isn't.
>>
>>         No it's not, actual sales figures compiled from the
>> computer makers themselves is the indicator.
>
> you're forgetting that a lot of those are corporate sales where one guy
> is buying 1000 computers in one shot.
>
> apple is weak in that sector, but huge where people buy their own
> machines.
>
> like i said, it all depends how you want to count it.

       However you count it? In other words you ignore the real 
sales numbers and the market share figures from the same sources 
you cite. Basically you're saying that 2007 numbers of OS X 
market share are more accurate than June 2010 market share 
numbers. Geez and it's from the same source too. So I guess you 
can lie and spin all you want. How you count it is very inaccurate.

>
>>          But the fact that their growth is phenomenal should tell
>> you that Apple's 15% growth in the US is not much. Let me
>> explain it to you in simpler terms for you. If a company that
>> sells 100 computers a year has 75% growth, it is nothing
>> compared to a company that sells 100,000 computers a year an had
>> 10% growth. Does that clear it up any?
>
> asus growth is due to netbooks, a sector apple does not even
> participate! of course it's going to be bigger. duh.

      The iPad is Apple's netbook entry but since it's so 
underpowered, I don't really see it as a netbook. It's 
performance is lacking when comparing to cheaper netbooks.

>

>
>>> and you'll believe what you want to believe, regardless if the facts
>>> show otherwise.
>>
>>        I have the actual sales data to back me up. You have
>> nothing but sales figures from a tiny portion of the computer
>> market.
>
> post a link.

      Already did. If you're to stupid to know you were proven 
wrong on multiple occasions, then you are one of those nutty 
Apple cult members. Even though you're proven wrong, you keep 
spewing the same bullshit and lies like some brainwashed cult 
member. I think I'm done with you. PLonk

John

On 7/17/2010 5:34 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 16/07/10 11:47 PM, John Slade wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I would have trouble incuding the iPad since it runs on iPhone OS. If
>> you include the iPad you would have to include all smarphones. In one of
>> the charts I posted they do include iPhone numbers and it comes to less
>> than 1%.
>>
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
>>
>> John
>
> It's really only an issue to those that are upset about OS-X's market
> share, and interestingly enough, Apple isn't one of those upset. They
> have margins on their hardware that Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc can only
> dream of because Apple can charge premium prices for hardware while the
> Windows systems vendors are in a race to the bottom on prices. Apple
> also never felt the need to compete at the low end where the margins
> really suck. The iPad was a brilliant move, selling for much more than a
> netbook with a bill of materials that's far lower. Those that complain
> that it's "not a real computer" do not understand what drives the
> consumer electronics business.

     The iPad, iPhone, iPod and iPod touch are brilliant moves 
by Apple. They make great devices despite this problem with the 
iPhone 4. As for their low end offerings, it's the Mini and 
iMac. They both have low-end performance but Apple can sell them 
at mid-range to high-end prices because they make them cute and 
small. Most people want practical and cheap over cute and small.

>
> Apple's opportunity for large market share gains with OS-X on computers
> is over because of Windows 7. There's just no big incentive for Windows
> users to switch anymore especially corporate, commercial, and
> educational users who need to run applications that are not available on
> OS-X, and would have to do dual booting or run Parallels to use Mac
> hardware. Those same users that use Windows at work are unlikely to want
> to have a different OS at home unless they are shown some significant
> advantages, especially given the higher hardware cost of the Apple
> products.

        I agree, Windows 7 is the best move from Microsoft since 
they went from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 or from 98, NT and 
2000 to XP. It's way more stable.

        As for the hardware costs of Apple. I don't see where 
the extra cost is since they have proprietary parts like HP and 
Dell have/had. They get them made by the same people at the same 
quality. IMO Apple's extra costs come mainly from the way their 
machines look and OS X. OS X is like by a niche and they will 
pay a premium for it.

>
> The transition from "Apple Computer" to just "Apple" shows that the
> company understands that their future success is in achieving commanding
> market positions in high margin consumer products like the iPod, iPad
> and iPhone, as well as selling content.

     Last time I checked their iPhone and other small devices 
made up about 40% of Apples revenue intake. But the content in 
the future will be the big moneymaker IMO. I see XBox Live 
making money and online games making money. I see music and 
video sales moving in the right direction.

John

In article <4c4090bb$0$1623$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:

> I was matter-of-factly very appreciative and approving in your
> paragraph, and thought everything was great, until I got to the last
> sentence: "The software was built for Windows."  Anybody who writes
> criticial software for Microsoft ought to be shot.  I mean officially
> shot.

The US Navy discovered what happens when you automate on the Windows 
platform. I don't think they'll be making that mistake again soon.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article <4c4083dd$0$22152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple has an easier time of it, with total control of the OS and 
> hardware, and fewer applications to worry about.

Sort of. We have a half-dozen Macs at work. We needed to automate some 
of the management, since the IT staff is Windows-oriented and doesn't 
want to integrate the Macs (which are actually ProTools workstations) 
into their corral. What I did was to pretty much pretend that they were 
Unix workstations (which, under the hood, they are), and using nothing 
more that utilities that came with the Darwin distribution and some 
supervisory programming of my own, set up an entire automated management 
system.

This is no major feat: Unix admins do this routinely. But the point is 
that it works, it's stable, and it is all out of the reach or notice of 
the users. 

So the claim that Mac relinquishes no control over it's OS isn't exactly 
true. As long as access to the Unix is available, there are an awful lot 
of tricks an ordinary person can do in the "basement".

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>The US Navy discovered what happens when you automate on the Windows 
>platform. I don't think they'll be making that mistake again soon.

All I can say is that if Windows is so unstable they'd have been sued by 
plenty of customers who depend on them.  

It is reasonable to believe that Windows, given its ubiquitous market 
penetration, is a stable platform.  And when it's reasonable to assume 
something (that is, then an average person believes something is reasonable) 
then the company is open to lawsuits based on performance.  That's not 
something they can absolve themselves from with a disclaimer.

In article <i1t8d9$228$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> 
> >The US Navy discovered what happens when you automate on the Windows 
> >platform. I don't think they'll be making that mistake again soon.
> 
> All I can say is that if Windows is so unstable they'd have been sued by 
> plenty of customers who depend on them.  

Have you read the EULA? And there's one thing Microsoft never skimped 
on: attorneys. 

> It is reasonable to believe that Windows, given its ubiquitous market 
> penetration, is a stable platform.  And when it's reasonable to assume 
> something (that is, then an average person believes something is reasonable) 
> then the company is open to lawsuits based on performance.  That's not 
> something they can absolve themselves from with a disclaimer.

Oh, puh-leeze!

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>Have you read the EULA? And there's one thing Microsoft never skimped 
>on: attorneys. 

Yea, backwards and forwards, and the EULA doesn't exempt them before the fact. 
This is why most EULA's are bogus, especially the part that says that 
particular software "is not fit for any particular purpose."  A "reasonable" 
person buys an operating system assuming that it will run properly on the 
computer it's designed for.  

Such "particular purpose" disclaimers are designed to absolve liability if the 
software is used for something totally different.  An example of a disclaimed 
use is a car tire being tied by rope from a tree and used as a swing.  It is 
not reasonable to expect the tire company to guarantee that the tire would 
make a good swing unless it were sold as a swing.  

A "reasonable" person has the right to expect good performance from an 
operating system.  Windows is not an open-source Linux put together by 
volunteers.  If it were, then a "reasonable" person wouldn't have a prayer if 
Linux broke down.  

There may have been some, but I can't think of any lawsuits brought against 
Microsoft for failure in mission-critical situations.  Likewise, I can't think 
of anyone suing Apple for this, either.  

I've mentioned before of scenarios in which Windows has been running for 300+ 
days, the equivalent of Linux and Unix uptimes.  

In article <i1tb1f$9k1$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> Such "particular purpose" disclaimers are designed to absolve liability if 
> the 
> software is used for something totally different.  An example of a disclaimed 
> use is a car tire being tied by rope from a tree and used as a swing.  It is 
> not reasonable to expect the tire company to guarantee that the tire would 
> make a good swing unless it were sold as a swing.  

I don't think that's what the Navy was doing.

> A "reasonable" person has the right to expect good performance from an 
> operating system.  Windows is not an open-source Linux put together by 
> volunteers.  If it were, then a "reasonable" person wouldn't have a prayer if 
> Linux broke down.  

In the mid-nineties I moved from the Windows platform to the Linux 
platform. The result was infinitely more capable software (the mature 
multi-tasking platform provides far more help to the application than 
Windows), which was much more stable. If I had Linux questions, there 
was a whole network of people who could help. Windows "help" was useless 
if a non-mass market application was involved. If you hinted you were a 
developer, you were invited to pay big money for developers' support.

> There may have been some, but I can't think of any lawsuits brought against 
> Microsoft for failure in mission-critical situations.  Likewise, I can't 
> think 
> of anyone suing Apple for this, either.  

What would be the point? It would be some lowly user against all of 
their experts. Software, including operating systems, comprise a "best 
effort" climate. No one, not even (or maybe even especially) Microsoft 
can anticipate all applications that can be written on their platforms. 
End of case.

> I've mentioned before of scenarios in which Windows has been running for 300+ 
> days, the equivalent of Linux and Unix uptimes.  

No dispute there. I, too, have discovered that Windows systems doing 
nothing or close to it can run indefinitely. My service bureau machines 
were a different matter, requiring reboots every other week. When I went 
to Linux, it was never necessary to reboot a machine. Both ran my 
software.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>If I had Linux questions, there 
>was a whole network of people who could help. Windows "help" was useless 
>if a non-mass market application was involved. 

That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical" 
situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there 
is nobody to sue.  

Just so you'll understand this liability issue, I'll give you another example 
of this.  Rick and Megan Prelinger operate the Prelinger Archives, which 
licenses public domain film and video to anybody who wants to use it for any 
purpose -- commercials, TV shows, art, whatever.  So, what's this about 
licensing something that's already public domain?  Well, just in case it isn't 
public domain, the sale of the license creates a paper trail of liability, 
should someone claim later that their copyright was violated.  Basically, Rick 
and Megan are taking the liability burden off the companies that license the 
work and assuming the liability themselves.  


>What would be the point? It would be some lowly user against all of 
>their experts. 

I'm not talking about the "lowly user" suing, but let's say UCSF, where our 
organ transplant software has been used for over 10 years.  Should Microsoft 
Windows have been THAT bad that it couldn't be relied upon, you can BET that 
the State of California, acting on behalf of UCSF would have sued 
the pants off Microsoft.  But they haven't.  

David Kaye wrote:
> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> 
>> The US Navy discovered what happens when you automate on the Windows 
>> platform. I don't think they'll be making that mistake again soon.
> 
> All I can say is that if Windows is so unstable they'd have been sued by 
> plenty of customers who depend on them.  

In order to effectively sue MS for Windows problems you first have to 
figure out how to get past the EULA.

> And when it's reasonable to assume 
> something (that is, then an average person believes something is reasonable) 
> then the company is open to lawsuits based on performance.  That's not 
> something they can absolve themselves from with a disclaimer.

It is something they *have* effectively absolved themselves from - both 
with the EULA disclaimer and the fact that they can afford more lawyers 
than you could imagine.

jc

In article <i1tfe1$qq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical" 
> situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there 
> is nobody to sue.  

I guess you missed the fact that the government spent years and millions 
of dollars prosecuting an open and shut case involving unfair marketing 
practices and ended up with the most milquetoast verdict of its kind in 
history. Who would have those resources to pursue a nebulous case of 
what? What would you sue for? All Microsoft would have to do is point to 
the millions of satisfied customers, while pointing its expensive legal 
finger of blame at the hapless plaintiff's "defective software".

Since you are claiming that it is perfectly feasible to sue an operating 
system vendor for an unstable product, perhaps you could provide an 
example of this with documentation. Surely, you are not going to claim 
that no operating system vendor has ever provided a defective or 
unusable product to *someone*.

> I'm not talking about the "lowly user" suing, but let's say UCSF, where our 
> organ transplant software has been used for over 10 years.  Should Microsoft 
> Windows have been THAT bad that it couldn't be relied upon, you can BET that 
> the State of California, acting on behalf of UCSF would have sued 
> the pants off Microsoft.  But they haven't.  

Before they sued YOU? Not a chance.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>Since you are claiming that it is perfectly feasible to sue an operating 
>system vendor for an unstable product, perhaps you could provide an 
>example of this with documentation. 

Of course it's perfectly feasible, just as it's perfectly feasible to sue 
Toyota over accelerator problems and Jack-in-the-Box over tainted food.  The 
fact that we've never heard of such a suit over any operating system means 
that the current operating systems themselves are stable enough for mission 
critical work. 

But, let's say I'm running a company that depends on running servers for 
e-commerce.  Would I go with Microsoft, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Red Hat, or who?  
I'd go first with Microsoft, then with Red Hat, and never even consider Ubuntu 
or Mandriva, even though I happen to love Ubuntu.  Why?  Because as a user 
needing a mission critical OS, I'd always go with the vendor with the deepest 
pockets.  If my e-commerce got damaged I'd want to be able to sue someone who 
could afford to pay me off.  

JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>In order to effectively sue MS for Windows problems you first have to 
>figure out how to get past the EULA.

Are you not reading what I'm writing?  The EULA is useless if a reasonable 
person expects X amount of performance.  Windows is obviously designed to be 
a computer operating system.  As such, Microsoft can't just invoke a EULA 
saying that they aren't responsible if their product doesn't work properly as 
a computer operating system.  

That's like Toyota having a EULA that says that they won't warrant their cars 
for any particular purpose, such as driving, or that they won't warrant 
against defects such as accelerators sticking.  


>It is something they *have* effectively absolved themselves from - both 
>with the EULA disclaimer and the fact that they can afford more lawyers 
>than you could imagine.

So many big companies and governments use Windows that if there were any 
issues as to the viability of Windows, they would have sued.  Nobody has more 
lawyers at their disposal -- plus the force of the law itself -- than 
government.  

In message <_S90o.36480$YX3.2910@newsfe18.iad> John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> was claimed to have wrote:

>       LOL. I love how they keep trying to spin this.

What's to spin?  Apple's own words indicate that Microsoft strengthened
Apple's viability.

"This deal strengthens Apple's viability. It's a new era in terms of
Apple and Microsoft working together," said Apple chief financial
officer Fred Anderson.

Whether Apple was viable without Microsoft or not is a matter of some
debate, I'd suggest that they could have stayed alive living on iPods
and similar, but I doubt they'd be much of a force in the world of
computers.

Their marketshare at the time wasn't particularly favourable and even
with their current ~10% market share, most line-of-business applications
just don't exist on OSX, so without a few basics that Microsoft
developed, Apple likely would have stayed relegated to schools and
people that needed to be told how to think "differently" and well away
from any serious business use.

*shrugs*

At this point it doesn't really matter.  Microsoft needs the
competition, and since Linux is uninterested or incapable of competiting
for the desktop world it's nice to have someone to drive Microsoft
forward.

In article <i1u0mf$h5u$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> Of course it's perfectly feasible, just as it's perfectly feasible to sue 
> Toyota over accelerator problems and Jack-in-the-Box over tainted food.  The 
> fact that we've never heard of such a suit over any operating system means 
> that the current operating systems themselves are stable enough for mission 
> critical work. 

Then where are the examples? 

> But, let's say I'm running a company that depends on running servers for 
> e-commerce.  Would I go with Microsoft, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Red Hat, or who?  
> I'd go first with Microsoft, then with Red Hat, and never even consider 
> Ubuntu 
> or Mandriva, even though I happen to love Ubuntu.  Why?  Because as a user 
> needing a mission critical OS, I'd always go with the vendor with the deepest 
> pockets.  If my e-commerce got damaged I'd want to be able to sue someone who 
> could afford to pay me off.  

I use nothing but Ubuntu. My servers handle critical services for many 
clusters of stations (including, ironically, the entire CBS cluster in 
Las Vegas). I've never had the slightest problem with the OS that I 
couldn't solve myself. None.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

David Kaye wrote:
> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> 
>> If I had Linux questions, there 
>> was a whole network of people who could help. Windows "help" was useless 
>> if a non-mass market application was involved. 
> 
> That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical" 
> situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there 
> is nobody to sue.  

You say that like it (suing) is a feature.  Au contraire.  It's not a 
feature, because you will NEVER get anywhere suing.  So instead of 
suing, pick the OS that will work best for your application.

There's a reason why most big sites (those serving lots of data) run on 
linux (or other *nix such as FreeBSD) servers.  They don't rely on 
"someone to sue" - they just picked the most robust OS and learned how 
to properly configure it, and then built their application on top.  E.g.:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/Hosters

jc

David Kaye wrote:

> But, let's say I'm running a company that depends on running servers for 
> e-commerce.  Would I go with Microsoft, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Red Hat, or who?  
> I'd go first with Microsoft, then with Red Hat, and never even consider Ubuntu 
> or Mandriva, even though I happen to love Ubuntu.  Why?  Because as a user 
> needing a mission critical OS, I'd always go with the vendor with the deepest 
> pockets.  If my e-commerce got damaged I'd want to be able to sue someone who 
> could afford to pay me off.  

I urge all my competitors to do exactly that.  :-)

jc

David Kaye wrote:
> JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In order to effectively sue MS for Windows problems you first have to 
>> figure out how to get past the EULA.
> 
> Are you not reading what I'm writing?  The EULA is 

very strong.

Try this.  Try to find a single case where someone successfully sued 
Microsoft and in doing so invalidated the terms of the EULA.

> That's like Toyota having a EULA that says that they won't warrant their cars 
> for any particular purpose, such as driving, or that they won't warrant 
> against defects such as accelerators sticking.  

Indeed, it is.  However, good luck with that - if Toyota tried that 
people would just buy cars from Honda instead.  MS gets away with this 
because people feel they have no choice.  They also don't realize 
exactly what they are agreeing to (when was the last time you actually 
read a EULA before clicking "I agree) when they install the software.

>> It is something they *have* effectively absolved themselves from - both 
>> with the EULA disclaimer and the fact that they can afford more lawyers 
>> than you could imagine.
> 
> So many big companies and governments use Windows that if there were any 
> issues as to the viability of Windows, they would have sued.  Nobody has more 
> lawyers at their disposal -- plus the force of the law itself -- than 
> government.  

Again, good luck with that.  It would end up costing them more than they 
could possibly recover.  Far better to learn from the experience and 
move on.  The US no longer uses Windows OSs to run battleships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_%28CG-48%29#Smart_ship_testbed

jc

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>I use nothing but Ubuntu. My servers handle critical services for many 
>clusters of stations (including, ironically, the entire CBS cluster in 
>Las Vegas). I've never had the slightest problem with the OS that I 
>couldn't solve myself. None.

I never said you would have any problems.  I also said that I love Ubuntu.  
But from a liability standpoint, if I were in a big business in a position to 
select a vendor that supplied me with something critical to my business, I'd 
go with the one with the deepest pockets.  

This is just going around and around.  I'm finished here.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:47:21 GMT, in
<i1t8d9$228$1@news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David
Kaye) wrote:

>John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>
>>The US Navy discovered what happens when you automate on the Windows 
>>platform. I don't think they'll be making that mistake again soon.
>
>All I can say is that if Windows is so unstable they'd have been sued by 
>plenty of customers who depend on them.  
>
>It is reasonable to believe that Windows, given its ubiquitous market 
>penetration, is a stable platform.  And when it's reasonable to assume 
>something (that is, then an average person believes something is reasonable) 
>then the company is open to lawsuits based on performance.  That's not 
>something they can absolve themselves from with a disclaimer.

The U.S. Navy continues to use Microsoft Windows.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:07:20 -0700, in
<higgy-C303DF.16072017072010@news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon
<higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>> I've mentioned before of scenarios in which Windows has been running for 300+ 
>> days, the equivalent of Linux and Unix uptimes.  
>
>No dispute there. I, too, have discovered that Windows systems doing 
>nothing or close to it can run indefinitely. My service bureau machines 
>were a different matter, requiring reboots every other week. When I went 
>to Linux, it was never necessary to reboot a machine. Both ran my 
>software.

Perhaps you don't know how to administer Windows properly -- the Windows
servers I've administered have run without crashes for years under heavy
loads.

-- 
John

"It's a poor workman who blames his tools." [proverb]

On 17/07/10 6:30 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<i1tfe1$qq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical"
>> situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there
>> is nobody to sue.
>
> I guess you missed the fact that the government spent years and millions
> of dollars prosecuting an open and shut case involving unfair marketing
> practices and ended up with the most milquetoast verdict of its kind in
> history.

Hmm, that all must have happened in an alternate universe, because the 
case against Microsoft was certainly not an open and shut case, and the 
court of appeals overturned the ridiculous rulings of Jackson, who 
routinely violated the code of conduct for judges.

The central issue of the case, that bundling a browser with the OS was 
deemed absurd by even other OS companies that were doing the exact same 
thing.

Microsoft was never found to have engaged in monopolistic behavior, nor, 
by any definition of the word, does it qualify as a monopoly. Achieving 
a substantial market share, does not meet the definition of a monopoly. 
No doubt Apple, if they decided to go into the OS business, could 
achieve a substantial market share as well. It's rather ironic that if 
you go to Fry's and purchase a legal copy of OS-X, you are actually 
forbidden from using it on non-Apple hardware. If you purchase a legal 
copy of Windows 7 you can install it on any hardware you please.

In article <4c4342f4$0$22140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Microsoft was never found to have engaged in monopolistic behavior, nor, 
>by any definition of the word, does it qualify as a monopoly.

"Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

From the Findings of Fact in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus
MICROSOFT CORP.

Note: The Finds of Fact were *not* overturned on appeal. The
Court of Appeals upheld that Microsoft had acted illegally in
protecting its monopoly.

The Euopean Union also found that Microsoft represented a
"quasi-monopoly" with essentially the same effect.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 17/07/10 9:05 AM, John Slade wrote:

> The iPad, iPhone, iPod and iPod touch are brilliant moves by Apple. They
> make great devices despite this problem with the iPhone 4. As for their
> low end offerings, it's the Mini and iMac. They both have low-end
> performance but Apple can sell them at mid-range to high-end prices
> because they make them cute and small. Most people want practical and
> cheap over cute and small.

Most people feel that way, which is why the worldwide market share for 
Macs has not changed much, hovering between 3 and 4% for many years.

Apple realized that there were sufficient numbers of consumers that did 
not always buy the cheapest and most practical products to build a very 
profitable business around. As did Lexus, Acura, BMW, etc.

On 18/07/10 1:39 PM, Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In article<4c4342f4$0$22140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Microsoft was never found to have engaged in monopolistic behavior, nor,
>> by any definition of the word, does it qualify as a monopoly.
>
> "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

"Enjoys monopoly power" is not the same as being a monopoly. It's 
actually a very clear legal distinction.

Microsoft definitely had monopoly power, they had "the ability of a to 
control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic 
market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its 
relevant product market or geographic market." However they did not 
exercise that power.

In article <4c4370dd$0$22106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 18/07/10 1:39 PM, Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> In article<4c4342f4$0$22140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft was never found to have engaged in monopolistic behavior, nor,
>>> by any definition of the word, does it qualify as a monopoly.
>>
>> "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
>
>"Enjoys monopoly power" is not the same as being a monopoly. It's 
>actually a very clear legal distinction.

1. Got a reference for that?

2. You stated that "Microsoft was never found to have engaged in
   monopolistic behavior" but I believe the US Govt and European
   Union found otherwise.

Had you said that: "Microsoft does not meet the legal definition
of a monopoly" I'd have less of a problem. That's a close call
at best. But you didn't say that ;-)

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>"Enjoys monopoly power" is not the same as being a monopoly. It's 
>actually a very clear legal distinction.

For the most part Microsoft has been a "natural monopoly", gaining market 
share mostly due to product and marketing excellence.  Likewise, companies 
such as Wrigley's and Arm & Hammer enjoy natural monopolies in their areas of 
business as well.

In article <i20lpv$f7m$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> For the most part Microsoft has been a "natural monopoly", gaining market 
> share mostly due to product and marketing excellence. 

Installing the OS on virtually every brand of PC sold by any retailer 
doesn't hurt, either.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>Installing the OS on virtually every brand of PC sold by any retailer 
>doesn't hurt, either.

Hardware vendors have been free to install any OS they wanted.  And for a 
brief window of time, they could install a MacOS -- until Steve Jobs came back 
and killed that program.  

It happened that only Micorosft and IBM had widely supported operating 
systems.  MS had Windows and IBM had OS/2.  For awhile, NPR member stations 
installed an automation system that was OS/2 based, thus there were a few 
thousand computers that had OS/2 on them.  

The trouble with vendors putting a Linux flavor on their computers is who is 
going to support them?  I will.  And who else?  

In article <i2298i$45c$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> Hardware vendors have been free to install any OS they wanted.  And for a 
> brief window of time, they could install a MacOS -- until Steve Jobs came 
> back 
> and killed that program. 

I do recall the agreements Microsoft had with vendors: install Windows 
exclusively or loose the low-pricing on your wholesale agreement. 
Indeed, when we bought large quantities of PCs from Mini Micro, they 
would wipe the Windows from them for us, but they would not give us any 
price break (since they were claiming to be selling Windows PCs 
exclusively and they needed their quantities to match).
 
> The trouble with vendors putting a Linux flavor on their computers is who is 
> going to support them?  I will.  And who else?  

Linux is so quick and easy to install that we didn't care if the 
computers came with it or not. What annoyed us was having to pay the 
Microsoft Tax. And for that money, we didn't even get a licensed copy of 
Windows.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 19/07/10 1:00 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<i2298i$45c$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> Hardware vendors have been free to install any OS they wanted.  And for a
>> brief window of time, they could install a MacOS -- until Steve Jobs came
>> back
>> and killed that program.
>
> I do recall the agreements Microsoft had with vendors: install Windows
> exclusively or loose the low-pricing on your wholesale agreement.

You didn't actually have to install it, but you had to pay the licensing 
fee for every machine you produced.

> Indeed, when we bought large quantities of PCs from Mini Micro, they
> would wipe the Windows from them for us, but they would not give us any
> price break (since they were claiming to be selling Windows PCs
> exclusively and they needed their quantities to match).
>
>> The trouble with vendors putting a Linux flavor on their computers is who is
>> going to support them?  I will.  And who else?
>
> Linux is so quick and easy to install that we didn't care if the
> computers came with it or not. What annoyed us was having to pay the
> Microsoft Tax. And for that money, we didn't even get a licensed copy of
> Windows.

You can look at it that way, or you can look at from the view that the 
economies of scale that they gained by building mass quantities of PCs 
with Windows installed resulted in lower prices than you would have paid 
had they done a special build for you without the OS.

At one Taiwanese PC manufacturer I worked for, if we agreed to install 
Windows on every machine, about 100K per month, we got one price for the 
OS. If we wanted to install it on only 99K of 100K per month (assuming 
1% of customers did not want Windows) we would have paid a much higher 
price. It was much cheaper to install it on every machine, even if we 
had to eat the cost for the rare customer that did not want Windows. But 
Microsoft was perfectly willing to sell us the OS on a non-exclusive 
basis had we been foolish enough to choose that option. Microsoft was 
not the first OS company to use such a pricing system. It was done long 
before Windows was around.

Linux was always a royal PITA. There were (and are) so many different 
versions, with the need to ensure that every hardware configuration you 
sell has the proper drivers, it can drive you crazy. The support 
requirements are enormous because once you sell the system with Linux 
the customer holds you responsible for support when any piece of 
hardware they add to the system doesn't work. Things have greatly 
improved in the last few years, but you still have to worry about all 
the different Linux variants.

Linux is free, if time has no value.

On 7/18/10 12:13 AM, JC Dill wrote:
>
> Indeed, it is. However, good luck with that - if Toyota tried that people
> would just buy cars from Honda instead. MS gets away with this because
> people feel they have no choice. They also don't realize exactly what they
> are agreeing to (when was the last time you actually read a EULA before
> clicking "I agree) when they install the software.

A lawyer once told me, in all seriousness, that it's better that you, the 
consumer, *not* read EULA before installing any software.  He said you will 
have a stronger case in court, if you ever decided to sue (or if you are 
sued by the software developer), than if you took the time to read the EULA 
before agreeing to abide by it.


- Peter

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>You can look at it that way, or you can look at from the view that the 
>economies of scale that they gained by building mass quantities of PCs 
>with Windows installed resulted in lower prices than you would have paid 
>had they done a special build for you without the OS.

It's not economies of scale, though, it's marketing.  Unless there is some new 
way of writing software to HD that I don't know about, HDs have to receive 
copies of Windows the old-fashioned way.  Thus, it's easier and faster to sell 
a computer without Windows than with it, since they only need to install a 
blank HD.  

But it's in MS's interest to reduce the prices in order to pump up their 
market share, as long as the price does not drop below the cost of doing it.  
Then they'd get into anti-trust troubles.  I don't think anybody here has 
suggested that Windows was selling too cheaply, though...

Peter Lawrence <hummbaby@aol.com> wrote:

>A lawyer once told me, in all seriousness, that it's better that you, the 
>consumer, *not* read EULA before installing any software.  He said you will 
>have a stronger case in court, if you ever decided to sue (or if you are 
>sued by the software developer), than if you took the time to read the EULA 
>before agreeing to abide by it.

Although I do read the EULAs from time to time (which is how I found out that 
Microsoft does not collect personal information from computers, but that 
Google reserves the right to not only collect personal information but also to 
provide it to any 3rd party they choose), I do let a lot of EULA's slip by.

I find it fascinating that some EULA's especially on websites these days are 
written in light gray in order to discourage reading.  The more they 
discourage users to read, the stronger cases the users have should something 
go awry.

On 19/07/10 4:29 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> You can look at it that way, or you can look at from the view that the
>> economies of scale that they gained by building mass quantities of PCs
>> with Windows installed resulted in lower prices than you would have paid
>> had they done a special build for you without the OS.
>
> It's not economies of scale, though, it's marketing.  Unless there is some new
> way of writing software to HD that I don't know about, HDs have to receive
> copies of Windows the old-fashioned way.

But it isn't required to happen at the assembly line for each individual 
computer anymore. For mass market machines the disk drives are shipped 
to the assembly line with the disk image already present. It's not like 
in the past where each drive had to be loaded at the time the system is 
manufactured.

> Thus, it's easier and faster to sell
> a computer without Windows than with it, since they only need to install a
> blank HD.

And they used to just ship a start-up CD and the end user installed the 
OS. That resulted in lost profit from loading the drive with all the 
shovelware trial versions.

On 7/18/2010 1:44 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 17/07/10 9:05 AM, John Slade wrote:
>
>> The iPad, iPhone, iPod and iPod touch are brilliant moves by Apple. They
>> make great devices despite this problem with the iPhone 4. As for their
>> low end offerings, it's the Mini and iMac. They both have low-end
>> performance but Apple can sell them at mid-range to high-end prices
>> because they make them cute and small. Most people want practical and
>> cheap over cute and small.
>
> Most people feel that way, which is why the worldwide market share for
> Macs has not changed much, hovering between 3 and 4% for many years.
>
> Apple realized that there were sufficient numbers of consumers that did
> not always buy the cheapest and most practical products to build a very
> profitable business around. As did Lexus, Acura, BMW, etc.

       Macs have the same cheap components as PCs made by Dell, 
HP and others. The main difference is the packaging that gives 
no performance boost over other PCs. But they maintain that 
illusion to a small percentage of people and that's a major 
reasons Macs have survived another reason is that Macs are now 
PCs that run Windows.

John

On Jul 22, 10:10 pm, John Slade <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>        Macs have the same cheap components as PCs made by Dell,
> HP and others. The main difference is the packaging that gives
> no performance boost over other PCs. But they maintain that
> illusion to a small percentage of people and that's a major
> reasons Macs have survived another reason is that Macs are now
> PCs that run Windows.

That's not why I have a Mac.

I have a Mac because (a) I like having access to a genuine UNIX
command line[1], (b) I find the GUI on the Mac to be better designed
than the various X11 window managers and *much*, *much* better
designed than Windows, (c) I did systems administration for 12 years
and got burned out on it so I like having something that "just works",
(d) I want to be able to, say, buy a new digital camera and be
reasonably sure I can easily get it to interoperate with my
computer[2] because the box says it works with a Mac (Linux is
mentioned nowhere on it, of course).

The Mac satisfies all these needs. That it costs a little more matters
not; I'd rather spend more and have something that does what I want
than to chintz and be disappointed.

[1] Sorry, Cygwin ain't UNIX. Not even close.
[2] And no, it is *not* my idea of a fun leisure-time activity to try
and buy one of the cameras listed as being supported by, say, the
latest Ubuntu release, only to find they've all been discontinued and
replaced with new models, so I have to download and install a new
driver, which either doesn't work or makes my computer crash because
it only runs under the latest development kernel, which I then install
but which breaks half a dozen existing packages which I need to use,
and ....

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

In article 
<a6650edf-271e-4318-8d11-1873e102e9eb@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
 davidb@scn.org wrote:

> The Mac satisfies all these needs. That it costs a little more matters
> not; I'd rather spend more and have something that does what I want
> than to chintz and be disappointed.

Years ago, I bought a Pioneer external DVD burner to connect to an older 
Mac. Inside the box was a large pamphlet with setup instructions. 
Section after section (many pages each) gave the instructions necessary 
to set up the drive on flavors of Windows various. I was beginning to 
think there was no Mac support or drivers. 

When I reached the end of the pamphlet, there was a header that declared 
"Setup for Macintosh". The two lines that followed essentially said, 
"plug it in; turn it on." That's what I did and it has worked perfectly 
ever since.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last