Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

7 Questions To Ask A Laptop Salesman

 
 
John Doue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2008, 10:58 AM
BillW50 wrote:
> Richard Bonner wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:43 +0000 (UTC):
>> BillW50 ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>>> Richard Bonner wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:33:02 +0000 (UTC):
>>>> Don ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>>>>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>>>>>> *** If you will not be running Windows, ask if the store will
>>>>>> refund
>>>>>> the operating system cost if you buy it without the operating system
>>>>>> installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>> Be very careful with that one. If you buy a machine meant for
>>>>> Vista and you want to inxtall XP instead, drivers may be a big
>>>>> issue. Your laptop model may be so new that there are no XP
>>>>> drivers for some of the devices inside the box.
>>>> *** Good point. This is yet another reason the Microsoft monopoly
>>>> needs
>>>> to be broken up. Then we can back to more consumer choice.

>>
>>> No, you need VirtualPC and not worry about drivers with older
>>> versions. All you need to do is to use your head. Simple eh?

>>
>>> I just ran Ubuntu Eee 8.04.1 here last night and when I switched back
>>> to Windows XP, the registry was corrupt and the desktop was all
>>> screwed up. I thought that was strange and I restored it with ERUNT.

>>
>>> Ran Ubuntu again and shut it down and ran Windows again. And guess
>>> what? Ubuntu corrupted the Windows registry once again. I did this a
>>> third time and the same thing.

>>
>>> It is my belief that Microsoft is number one because their
>>> competitors are evil and stupid. I've seen this go on for decades.
>>> And Microsoft would have been taken out long ago except for this
>>> issue that befalls their competitors.
>>> --
>>> Bill

>>
>> *** I won't argue against your opinion except to say that Microsoft in
>> the past has been guilty of bullying competitors out of the market, and
>> guilty of putting things into their products to mess up other operating
>> systems. I would prefer real and honest competition.

>
> That is because the competitors has done it to Microsoft. So are you the
> type who believes people and companies has no right to defend
> themselves? Also zillions of companies owes their very existence to what
> Microsoft has created. And if MS didn't battle it out with IBM, we all
> would be using IBM made computers and running IBM made software. And
> there would be nobody else around except perhaps Apple. Well Apple would
> be gone too since Microsoft gave Apple money to stay in business, but
> you know IBM wouldn't do that for Apple. So how many other competitors
> do you know that will give you money to stay in business? Nowadays Bill
> Gates is giving billions of dollars away to help people.
>

Bill,

With all due respect, I think here you have a very one sided view. Gates
did have a vision others did not have (especially IBM), nobody disputes
that. But since you have a good memory, remember how MS killed Netscape,
incorporated Stacker (knew that software?) into MS Dos just because it
had not been smart enough to create this software, and appropriated so
many ideas from others who did not have the means to protect with an
armada of lawyers?

If MS put money in Apple, do you honestly think it was out of sheer
generosity? When MS invested in WordPerfect, do you thing it was to
promote WP against Word?

B Gates has undisputably had genious ideas. But then, he just became
greedy and smart at using other people's idea. The ball stopped rolling
first with Millenium and then, for good, after XP; and it looks like 7
will be very short on actual innovations, innovations that will make our
life easier. Vista has been a major major failure. MS did not see coming
Google, nor Yahoo. MS just has full coffers and is now trying to buy
what it was not smart enough to create and could not put its hands on.

I am glad B. Gates now gives lots of money for other people's benefit
but nobody can tell where we would be without this guy. Cemeteries are
full of indispensible people. This guy has unfairly stiffled competition
for at least a decade, put in place a monopoly only the EU has really
dared fight (with a relatively limited success) - and his vision has
become shortsighted.

I for one am very disappointed nobody has managed to make a user
friendly OS out of Linux. Linux would have needed someone with some (and
only some) of the qualities of Bill Gates. Then, our lives today really
might be different.

No offense meant, of course!



--
John Doue
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2008, 07:53 PM
In news:En60l.45$(E-Mail Removed),
John Doue typed on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:58:44 GMT:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> Richard Bonner wrote on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:39:43 +0000 (UTC):
>>> BillW50 ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>>>> Richard Bonner wrote on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:33:02 +0000 (UTC):
>>>>> Don ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>>>>>>> *** If you will not be running Windows, ask if the store will
>>>>>>> refund
>>>>>>> the operating system cost if you buy it without the operating
>>>>>>> system installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>> Be very careful with that one. If you buy a machine meant for
>>>>>> Vista and you want to inxtall XP instead, drivers may be a big
>>>>>> issue. Your laptop model may be so new that there are no XP
>>>>>> drivers for some of the devices inside the box.
>>>>> *** Good point. This is yet another reason the Microsoft
>>>>> monopoly needs
>>>>> to be broken up. Then we can back to more consumer choice.
>>>
>>>> No, you need VirtualPC and not worry about drivers with older
>>>> versions. All you need to do is to use your head. Simple eh?
>>>
>>>> I just ran Ubuntu Eee 8.04.1 here last night and when I switched
>>>> back to Windows XP, the registry was corrupt and the desktop was
>>>> all screwed up. I thought that was strange and I restored it
>>>> with ERUNT.
>>>
>>>> Ran Ubuntu again and shut it down and ran Windows again. And guess
>>>> what? Ubuntu corrupted the Windows registry once again. I did this
>>>> a third time and the same thing.
>>>
>>>> It is my belief that Microsoft is number one because their
>>>> competitors are evil and stupid. I've seen this go on for decades.
>>>> And Microsoft would have been taken out long ago except for this
>>>> issue that befalls their competitors.
>>>> --
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> *** I won't argue against your opinion except to say that
>>> Microsoft in the past has been guilty of bullying competitors out
>>> of the market, and guilty of putting things into their products to
>>> mess up other operating systems. I would prefer real and honest
>>> competition.

>>
>> That is because the competitors has done it to Microsoft. So are you
>> the type who believes people and companies has no right to defend
>> themselves? Also zillions of companies owes their very existence to
>> what Microsoft has created. And if MS didn't battle it out with IBM,
>> we all would be using IBM made computers and running IBM made
>> software. And there would be nobody else around except perhaps
>> Apple. Well Apple would be gone too since Microsoft gave Apple money
>> to stay in business, but you know IBM wouldn't do that for Apple. So
>> how many other competitors do you know that will give you money to
>> stay in business? Nowadays Bill Gates is giving billions of dollars
>> away to help people.

> Bill,
>
> With all due respect, I think here you have a very one sided view.


Actually I am showing the other side which is almost never told.

> Gates did have a vision others did not have (especially IBM), nobody
> disputes that. But since you have a good memory, remember how MS
> killed Netscape,


Remember how Netscape said Microsoft programmers were nothing but crap?
Remember how they belittled Microsoft and wasn't shy about it? Remember how
Netscape had stolen Microsoft's giant IE logo? And Microsoft was upset and
created IE4 and Netscape wasn't smart enough to make their own Netscape
modular? Because everything they said about Microsoft turned around and bit
them in their behind. Microsoft beat them at their own game. And don't feel
sorry for those Netscape bastards. You can't expect to continue attacking
someone and not to expect them to defend themselves.

> incorporated Stacker (knew that software?) into MS
> Dos just because it had not been smart enough to create this
> software, and appropriated so many ideas from others who did not have
> the means to protect with an armada of lawyers?


No! Stacker had stolen the MS code to hook into the OS. Then MS then stolen
Stackers code. Don't attack somebody and don't expect them to not to fight
back.

> If MS put money in Apple, do you honestly think it was out of sheer
> generosity?


They were both kids who dropped out of college and were fighting the big
boys at IBM. Later Apple turned into a back stabber. Apple would stab their
own mother if they had a chance.

> When MS invested in WordPerfect, do you thing it was to
> promote WP against Word?


Word Perfect had stolen the word processor market away from WordStar, which
should have done in Word Perfect in every way. Although Word Perfect lied to
everybody and screwed their customers. As they sold $50 software for $495
and said it was that good. MS just came out with a better product at a
better price. Word Perfect are the kinds of people you want to do business
with? Not me!

> B Gates has undisputably had genious ideas. But then, he just became
> greedy and smart at using other people's idea.


MS software has always been a bargain (and IE4 was better than Netscape and
was free). If you rather pay $495 for a piece of 50 dollar software from
somebody else, be my guest. And they will never be there when you need them
in the future. As they used the high price you paid to buy yachts, etc. and
then retire. And they never cared about you before or after the sale. Gates
has been the least greedy company I have ever dealt with. And unlike other
companies, they haven't taken my money and closed up shop either like so
many others have.

> The ball stopped rolling first with Millenium and then, for good, after
> XP; and it looks like 7 will be very short on actual innovations,
> innovations that will make our life easier. Vista has been a major major
> failure. MS did not see coming Google, nor Yahoo. MS just has full coffers
> and is now trying to buy what it was not smart enough to create and could
> not put its hands on.


This is how things work when you are not a monopoly. Why people claim they
are just baffles me. MS doesn't have a gun to my head (nor anybody's else
either) and says I must buy Windows ME or Vista. That isn't so at all and I
don't own those products either. If I don't like them, I don't buy them. End
of story.

> I am glad B. Gates now gives lots of money for other people's benefit
> but nobody can tell where we would be without this guy. Cemeteries are
> full of indispensible people. This guy has unfairly stiffled
> competition for at least a decade, put in place a monopoly only the
> EU has really dared fight (with a relatively limited success) - and
> his vision has become shortsighted.


Not so! MS was attacked and fought back. If somebody attacked you, I
wouldn't blame you if you defended yourself as well. As I believe this is
your right.

As for the EU, what I bunch of bozos. I sure like to sue and hang their
necks. You know what those clowns did? They claimed that Microsoft was a
monopoly and made MS to sell Windows without the Media Player and charged MS
like 1/2 billion dollars. And you know what? This special version was
available and only about 1800 ever wanted a copy of it. So it cost us
consumers about 500 million dollars for this nonsense. The EU are nothing
more than corrupt bloody thieves, no question about it. They saw an easy way
to steal our money and they had taken it. Remember MS passes their cost
(just like any other company) on to us consumers.

> I for one am very disappointed nobody has managed to make a user
> friendly OS out of Linux. Linux would have needed someone with some
> (and only some) of the qualities of Bill Gates. Then, our lives today
> really might be different.


There have been many OS! The problem is making a user friendly OS isn't easy
and the only ones who has made it work on the PC at least has been MS. The
door is open for anybody else to do so. Problem is, nobody can as of yet.

> No offense meant, of course!


None taken and hopefully neither have you.

--
Bill
3 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Doue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2008, 08:45 AM
BillW50 wrote:

snip

> Actually I am showing the other side which is almost never told.


Are you so sure ? :=)
>
>> Gates did have a vision others did not have (especially IBM), nobody
>> disputes that. But since you have a good memory, remember how MS
>> killed Netscape,


Cannot say that I do!

>> incorporated Stacker (knew that software?) into MS
>> Dos just because it had not been smart enough to create this
>> software, and appropriated so many ideas from others who did not have
>> the means to protect with an armada of lawyers?

>
> No! Stacker had stolen the MS code to hook into the OS. Then MS then stolen
> Stackers code. Don't attack somebody and don't expect them to not to fight
> back.


Again, I am not in a position to be the referee here. The only thing I
know for sure is that MS did everything to keep secret decisive portions
of its OS. So, may be it is the story of the goose and the egg.

>
>> If MS put money in Apple, do you honestly think it was out of sheer
>> generosity?

>
> They were both kids who dropped out of college and were fighting the big
> boys at IBM. Later Apple turned into a back stabber. Apple would stab their
> own mother if they had a chance.


Don't know about that but it looks like you have an evangelist view of
B. Gates.

>
>> When MS invested in WordPerfect, do you thing it was to
>> promote WP against Word?

>
> Word Perfect had stolen the word processor market away from WordStar, which
> should have done in Word Perfect in every way.


Bill, there, please. WP was a the time a much much better product. I
know first hand here. And it was only natural that WP killed Wordstar.
The problem then is two fold: first WP did not see Windows prevailing as
it did, and then, when it realized it, it lacked focus (remember WP 6.1
for Dos; quite a technical feat, but wasted ressources), and then, it
was hurt, like so many software editors, that Windows code key parts
remained secret.

Granted, WP managers lacked vision, then Novell, then Corel. But WP
today, still has a strong edge over Word because of the famous reveal
codes which make formatting so much clearer and understandable. But a
good basis for a product cannot alleviate the lack of management
leadership and I fully agree here.

snip
>
> MS software has always been a bargain (and IE4 was better than Netscape and
> was free). If you rather pay $495 for a piece of 50 dollar software from
> somebody else, be my guest.


This a very offensive point of view. You know full well that IE was free
only to kill Netscape, and because MS could afford such a predator behavior
>


>> The ball stopped rolling first with Millenium and then, for good, after
>> XP; and it looks like 7 will be very short on actual innovations,
>> innovations that will make our life easier. Vista has been a major major
>> failure. MS did not see coming Google, nor Yahoo. MS just has full coffers
>> and is now trying to buy what it was not smart enough to create and could
>> not put its hands on.

>
> This is how things work when you are not a monopoly. Why people claim they
> are just baffles me. MS doesn't have a gun to my head (nor anybody's else
> either) and says I must buy Windows ME or Vista. That isn't so at all and I
> don't own those products either. If I don't like them, I don't buy them. End
> of story.


No, Bill, this is not correct. You know as well as me, and probably
better, the pressure MS puts on computer manufacters who try not put
Windows on their machine. Your statement is simplistic, since for most
buyers, they have no choice of OS. So basically, whenever you buy a
computer, you pay for Windows, like it or not and those who try to claim
they refuse to use face a very difficult journey to get some money back.
This is hardly disputable.
>


>
> As for the EU, what I bunch of bozos. I sure like to sue and hang their
> necks. You know what those clowns did? They claimed that Microsoft was a
> monopoly and made MS to sell Windows without the Media Player and charged MS
> like 1/2 billion dollars. And you know what? This special version was
> available and only about 1800 ever wanted a copy of it. So it cost us
> consumers about 500 million dollars for this nonsense. The EU are nothing
> more than corrupt bloody thieves, no question about it. They saw an easy way
> to steal our money and they had taken it. Remember MS passes their cost
> (just like any other company) on to us consumers.


I am not sure the specifics of the EU case were really valid, but still,
can you really argue that the case of software editors who saw their
products killed by MS integrating a pale copy into the OS is not valid?

>
>> I for one am very disappointed nobody has managed to make a user
>> friendly OS out of Linux. Linux would have needed someone with some
>> (and only some) of the qualities of Bill Gates. Then, our lives today
>> really might be different.

>
> There have been many OS! The problem is making a user friendly OS isn't easy
> and the only ones who has made it work on the PC at least has been MS. The
> door is open for anybody else to do so. Problem is, nobody can as of yet.


That is my biggest regret
>
>> No offense meant, of course!

>
> None taken and hopefully neither have you.


None at all, I have learnt to appreciate your knowledge and respect your
views, even when they differ from mines. I consider you a cyber friend
with whom I share a lot, passion, interests, age (!) and living in the
middle of nowhere, except for the fact I have wired broadband!

Regards
>



--
John Doue
 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2008, 08:48 PM
In news:JCK0l.18$(E-Mail Removed),
John Doue typed on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:45:29 GMT:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> Actually I am showing the other side which is almost never told.

>
> Are you so sure ? :=)


Hi John! Well I am pretty sure anyway.

>>> Gates did have a vision others did not have (especially IBM), nobody
>>> disputes that. But since you have a good memory, remember how MS
>>> killed Netscape,

>
> Cannot say that I do!


Actually you said that and not me. That was you quoting yourself.

>>> incorporated Stacker (knew that software?) into MS
>>> Dos just because it had not been smart enough to create this
>>> software, and appropriated so many ideas from others who did not
>>> have the means to protect with an armada of lawyers?

>>
>> No! Stacker had stolen the MS code to hook into the OS. Then MS then
>> stolen Stackers code. Don't attack somebody and don't expect them to
>> not to fight back.

>
> Again, I am not in a position to be the referee here. The only thing I
> know for sure is that MS did everything to keep secret decisive
> portions of its OS. So, may be it is the story of the goose and the
> egg.


This is indeed true! And MS applications does have an advantage since the
programmers also has the source code to the OS. But you can have access to
the source code too (like IBM had) if you sign a license agreement with
them. Lots of third party developers already do this. The people who are
crying are the ones who wants to know the secrets for free. That is like
asking to borrow somone elses credit card.

>>> If MS put money in Apple, do you honestly think it was out of sheer
>>> generosity?

>>
>> They were both kids who dropped out of college and were fighting the
>> big boys at IBM. Later Apple turned into a back stabber. Apple would
>> stab their own mother if they had a chance.

>
> Don't know about that but it looks like you have an evangelist view of
> B. Gates.


I don't think so. Just stating the facts. We would be far worse with
somebody else, I am sure of it. At least everybody I have seen so far
anyway.

>>> When MS invested in WordPerfect, do you thing it was to
>>> promote WP against Word?

>>
>> Word Perfect had stolen the word processor market away from
>> WordStar, which should have done in Word Perfect in every way.

>
> Bill, there, please. WP was a the time a much much better product. I
> know first hand here. And it was only natural that WP killed Wordstar.


Well I don't know about that. As I still have WordStar installed and I gave
up on Word Perfect many moons ago. Some call Word Perfect as Word Imperfect.
As I tend to agree. It just wasn't all that good or user friendly as
WordStar was. I mean the WordStar diamond layout was far easier to learn
than WP use of function keys and that damn template you had to throw on your
keyboard. And if you didn't have an IBM keyboard, it probably wouldn't fit
either.

> The problem then is two fold: first WP did not see Windows prevailing
> as it did, and then, when it realized it, it lacked focus (remember
> WP 6.1 for Dos; quite a technical feat, but wasted ressources), and
> then, it was hurt, like so many software editors, that Windows code
> key parts remained secret.


Every version of WP changed the function keys around. Not good! WordStar
sort of cheated for WordStar for Windows. As they already laid off their
programmers (thanks to WP) and they didn't know Windows anyway. So they
bought a word processor for Windows from some company and renamed it as
WordStar for Windows. I hated it as it wasn't anything like WordStar at all.
But some loved it and they still use it to this very day. There are two
forums still active with old users and sometimes a new user would pop in
from time to time. And they still compare WordStar for Windows 2 to the
latest version of Word to this very day.

> Granted, WP managers lacked vision, then Novell, then Corel. But WP
> today, still has a strong edge over Word because of the famous reveal
> codes which make formatting so much clearer and understandable. But a
> good basis for a product cannot alleviate the lack of management
> leadership and I fully agree here.


I agree except for famous reveal codes part. As I thought this is what
killed Word Perfect. You needed this feature in WP because WP automatically
put in hidden codes while you were typing. Hard to figure out when you
delete something that all of the sudden the formatting also went to hell as
well. That is until you reveal WP hidden mess of things and then learned
why. I'm sorry, but WYSIWYG is far more user friendly and why WP making life
very difficult had to go.

> snip
>>
>> MS software has always been a bargain (and IE4 was better than
>> Netscape and was free). If you rather pay $495 for a piece of 50
>> dollar software from somebody else, be my guest.

>
> This a very offensive point of view. You know full well that IE was
> free only to kill Netscape, and because MS could afford such a
> predator behavior


Maybe, but lots of other MS products are also free. Media Player is a good
example. Movie Maker is another. And Netscape also claimed when IE became
free (I paid for IEv1 lol) that they could give Netscape for free too. As
most of their income came from other non-browser sales. So what's the
problem?

The problem was Netscape was lying! They really needed sales of their
browser to survive. In my view, MS isn't responsible since Netscape said it
was okay that IE was free. This leaves MS off of the hook. Netscape hung
themselves because they were stupid and they lied all of the time. And
stupid people who lie all of the time don't get my business. Nor should they
get anybody else's business either as they will just screw you anyway.

>>> The ball stopped rolling first with Millenium and then, for good,
>>> after XP; and it looks like 7 will be very short on actual
>>> innovations, innovations that will make our life easier. Vista has
>>> been a major major failure. MS did not see coming Google, nor
>>> Yahoo. MS just has full coffers and is now trying to buy what it
>>> was not smart enough to create and could not put its hands on.

>>
>> This is how things work when you are not a monopoly. Why people
>> claim they are just baffles me. MS doesn't have a gun to my head
>> (nor anybody's else either) and says I must buy Windows ME or Vista.
>> That isn't so at all and I don't own those products either. If I
>> don't like them, I don't buy them. End of story.

>
> No, Bill, this is not correct. You know as well as me, and probably
> better, the pressure MS puts on computer manufacters who try not put
> Windows on their machine. Your statement is simplistic, since for most
> buyers, they have no choice of OS. So basically, whenever you buy a
> computer, you pay for Windows, like it or not and those who try to
> claim they refuse to use face a very difficult journey to get some
> money back. This is hardly disputable.


No John... this is how business works! I don't dispute it because everybody
does it. Coke, Pepsi, Lays, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and on and on. You would
have a point if it was only Microsoft, but it isn't. It is virtually
everybody operates this way.

Don't you remember when IBM first broke up with Microsoft and IBM refused to
sell any PCs with Windows installed on them? Remember what happened? IBM PC
sales plummeted. IBM had to change their policy very quickly. But even
still, IBM sales never really recovered.

There are lots of other companies that sold computers without Windows. I
even at one time said I would fill any orders of a thousand or more PCs
without Windows (it wasn't worth my time for less). The problem is they just
don't sell. Very few people are willing to buy computers without Windows.
Rather they mostly want Windows installed or the computer is worthless to
them. This is how it really works.

>> As for the EU, what I bunch of bozos. I sure like to sue and hang
>> their necks. You know what those clowns did? They claimed that
>> Microsoft was a monopoly and made MS to sell Windows without the
>> Media Player and charged MS like 1/2 billion dollars. And you know
>> what? This special version was available and only about 1800 ever
>> wanted a copy of it. So it cost us consumers about 500 million
>> dollars for this nonsense. The EU are nothing more than corrupt
>> bloody thieves, no question about it. They saw an easy way to steal
>> our money and they had taken it. Remember MS passes their cost (just
>> like any other company) on to us consumers.

>
> I am not sure the specifics of the EU case were really valid, but
> still, can you really argue that the case of software editors who saw
> their products killed by MS integrating a pale copy into the OS is
> not valid?


Look when the EU had stolen 1/2 billion dollars from the consumers, this is
really wrong and why the people who are responsible isn't in jail tells me
the whole system is corrupt. This is point one.

As for the pale copy part. Here is how I see it. If MS did this in the first
place, the company couldn't give their product away in the first place.
Secondly, they played on a weak spot in the MS OS and improved on it. If
they do it well, they make lots of money and most of them do.

Now when MS comes out with their version (remember WordStar owned the word
processor market and there was nobody else and then WP had stolen it away by
lying to consumers and you think this is great), and it does the job the
consumers wants, then they win. If the other company does a better job and
the consumers want this instead, they win. This is how business works.

>>> I for one am very disappointed nobody has managed to make a user
>>> friendly OS out of Linux. Linux would have needed someone with some
>>> (and only some) of the qualities of Bill Gates. Then, our lives
>>> today really might be different.

>>
>> There have been many OS! The problem is making a user friendly OS
>> isn't easy and the only ones who has made it work on the PC at least
>> has been MS. The door is open for anybody else to do so. Problem is,
>> nobody can as of yet.

>
> That is my biggest regret


Others have tried and I believe Apple has come the closest. Unfortunately it
requires a high priced Apple BIOS.

>>> No offense meant, of course!

>>
>> None taken and hopefully neither have you.

>
> None at all, I have learnt to appreciate your knowledge and respect
> your views, even when they differ from mines. I consider you a cyber
> friend with whom I share a lot, passion, interests, age (!) and
> living in the middle of nowhere, except for the fact I have wired
> broadband!
> Regards


Same here John. I have DSL only because my rural road was wired and none
of the others were (no cable out here either). Why I don't know why my road
was picked (oldest wiring maybe and they rewired it)? But it is only 384kb
which sure beats dialup (I'm 7 miles away from the switching station and it
is a miracle it works at all). So I can't complain too much.

--
Bill
3 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Doue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008, 08:58 AM
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:JCK0l.18$(E-Mail Removed),
> John Doue typed on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:45:29 GMT:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Actually I am showing the other side which is almost never told.

>> Are you so sure ? :=)

>
> Hi John! Well I am pretty sure anyway.
>
>>>> Gates did have a vision others did not have (especially IBM), nobody
>>>> disputes that. But since you have a good memory, remember how MS
>>>> killed Netscape,

>> Cannot say that I do!

>
> Actually you said that and not me. That was you quoting yourself.
>
>>>> incorporated Stacker (knew that software?) into MS
>>>> Dos just because it had not been smart enough to create this
>>>> software, and appropriated so many ideas from others who did not
>>>> have the means to protect with an armada of lawyers?
>>> No! Stacker had stolen the MS code to hook into the OS. Then MS then
>>> stolen Stackers code. Don't attack somebody and don't expect them to
>>> not to fight back.

>> Again, I am not in a position to be the referee here. The only thing I
>> know for sure is that MS did everything to keep secret decisive
>> portions of its OS. So, may be it is the story of the goose and the
>> egg.

>
> This is indeed true! And MS applications does have an advantage since the
> programmers also has the source code to the OS. But you can have access to
> the source code too (like IBM had) if you sign a license agreement with
> them. Lots of third party developers already do this. The people who are
> crying are the ones who wants to know the secrets for free. That is like
> asking to borrow somone elses credit card.
>
>>>> If MS put money in Apple, do you honestly think it was out of sheer
>>>> generosity?
>>> They were both kids who dropped out of college and were fighting the
>>> big boys at IBM. Later Apple turned into a back stabber. Apple would
>>> stab their own mother if they had a chance.

>> Don't know about that but it looks like you have an evangelist view of
>> B. Gates.

>
> I don't think so. Just stating the facts. We would be far worse with
> somebody else, I am sure of it. At least everybody I have seen so far
> anyway.
>
>>>> When MS invested in WordPerfect, do you thing it was to
>>>> promote WP against Word?
>>> Word Perfect had stolen the word processor market away from
>>> WordStar, which should have done in Word Perfect in every way.

>> Bill, there, please. WP was a the time a much much better product. I
>> know first hand here. And it was only natural that WP killed Wordstar.

>
> Well I don't know about that. As I still have WordStar installed and I gave
> up on Word Perfect many moons ago. Some call Word Perfect as Word Imperfect.
> As I tend to agree. It just wasn't all that good or user friendly as
> WordStar was. I mean the WordStar diamond layout was far easier to learn
> than WP use of function keys and that damn template you had to throw on your
> keyboard. And if you didn't have an IBM keyboard, it probably wouldn't fit
> either.
>
>> The problem then is two fold: first WP did not see Windows prevailing
>> as it did, and then, when it realized it, it lacked focus (remember
>> WP 6.1 for Dos; quite a technical feat, but wasted ressources), and
>> then, it was hurt, like so many software editors, that Windows code
>> key parts remained secret.

>
> Every version of WP changed the function keys around. Not good! WordStar
> sort of cheated for WordStar for Windows. As they already laid off their
> programmers (thanks to WP) and they didn't know Windows anyway. So they
> bought a word processor for Windows from some company and renamed it as
> WordStar for Windows. I hated it as it wasn't anything like WordStar at all.
> But some loved it and they still use it to this very day. There are two
> forums still active with old users and sometimes a new user would pop in
> from time to time. And they still compare WordStar for Windows 2 to the
> latest version of Word to this very day.
>
>> Granted, WP managers lacked vision, then Novell, then Corel. But WP
>> today, still has a strong edge over Word because of the famous reveal
>> codes which make formatting so much clearer and understandable. But a
>> good basis for a product cannot alleviate the lack of management
>> leadership and I fully agree here.

>
> I agree except for famous reveal codes part. As I thought this is what
> killed Word Perfect. You needed this feature in WP because WP automatically
> put in hidden codes while you were typing. Hard to figure out when you
> delete something that all of the sudden the formatting also went to hell as
> well. That is until you reveal WP hidden mess of things and then learned
> why. I'm sorry, but WYSIWYG is far more user friendly and why WP making life
> very difficult had to go.
>
>> snip
>>> MS software has always been a bargain (and IE4 was better than
>>> Netscape and was free). If you rather pay $495 for a piece of 50
>>> dollar software from somebody else, be my guest.

>> This a very offensive point of view. You know full well that IE was
>> free only to kill Netscape, and because MS could afford such a
>> predator behavior

>
> Maybe, but lots of other MS products are also free. Media Player is a good
> example. Movie Maker is another. And Netscape also claimed when IE became
> free (I paid for IEv1 lol) that they could give Netscape for free too. As
> most of their income came from other non-browser sales. So what's the
> problem?
>
> The problem was Netscape was lying! They really needed sales of their
> browser to survive. In my view, MS isn't responsible since Netscape said it
> was okay that IE was free. This leaves MS off of the hook. Netscape hung
> themselves because they were stupid and they lied all of the time. And
> stupid people who lie all of the time don't get my business. Nor should they
> get anybody else's business either as they will just screw you anyway.
>
>>>> The ball stopped rolling first with Millenium and then, for good,
>>>> after XP; and it looks like 7 will be very short on actual
>>>> innovations, innovations that will make our life easier. Vista has
>>>> been a major major failure. MS did not see coming Google, nor
>>>> Yahoo. MS just has full coffers and is now trying to buy what it
>>>> was not smart enough to create and could not put its hands on.
>>> This is how things work when you are not a monopoly. Why people
>>> claim they are just baffles me. MS doesn't have a gun to my head
>>> (nor anybody's else either) and says I must buy Windows ME or Vista.
>>> That isn't so at all and I don't own those products either. If I
>>> don't like them, I don't buy them. End of story.

>> No, Bill, this is not correct. You know as well as me, and probably
>> better, the pressure MS puts on computer manufacters who try not put
>> Windows on their machine. Your statement is simplistic, since for most
>> buyers, they have no choice of OS. So basically, whenever you buy a
>> computer, you pay for Windows, like it or not and those who try to
>> claim they refuse to use face a very difficult journey to get some
>> money back. This is hardly disputable.

>
> No John... this is how business works! I don't dispute it because everybody
> does it. Coke, Pepsi, Lays, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and on and on. You would
> have a point if it was only Microsoft, but it isn't. It is virtually
> everybody operates this way.
>
> Don't you remember when IBM first broke up with Microsoft and IBM refused to
> sell any PCs with Windows installed on them? Remember what happened? IBM PC
> sales plummeted. IBM had to change their policy very quickly. But even
> still, IBM sales never really recovered.
>
> There are lots of other companies that sold computers without Windows. I
> even at one time said I would fill any orders of a thousand or more PCs
> without Windows (it wasn't worth my time for less). The problem is they just
> don't sell. Very few people are willing to buy computers without Windows.
> Rather they mostly want Windows installed or the computer is worthless to
> them. This is how it really works.
>
>>> As for the EU, what I bunch of bozos. I sure like to sue and hang
>>> their necks. You know what those clowns did? They claimed that
>>> Microsoft was a monopoly and made MS to sell Windows without the
>>> Media Player and charged MS like 1/2 billion dollars. And you know
>>> what? This special version was available and only about 1800 ever
>>> wanted a copy of it. So it cost us consumers about 500 million
>>> dollars for this nonsense. The EU are nothing more than corrupt
>>> bloody thieves, no question about it. They saw an easy way to steal
>>> our money and they had taken it. Remember MS passes their cost (just
>>> like any other company) on to us consumers.

>> I am not sure the specifics of the EU case were really valid, but
>> still, can you really argue that the case of software editors who saw
>> their products killed by MS integrating a pale copy into the OS is
>> not valid?

>
> Look when the EU had stolen 1/2 billion dollars from the consumers, this is
> really wrong and why the people who are responsible isn't in jail tells me
> the whole system is corrupt. This is point one.
>
> As for the pale copy part. Here is how I see it. If MS did this in the first
> place, the company couldn't give their product away in the first place.
> Secondly, they played on a weak spot in the MS OS and improved on it. If
> they do it well, they make lots of money and most of them do.
>
> Now when MS comes out with their version (remember WordStar owned the word
> processor market and there was nobody else and then WP had stolen it away by
> lying to consumers and you think this is great), and it does the job the
> consumers wants, then they win. If the other company does a better job and
> the consumers want this instead, they win. This is how business works.
>
>>>> I for one am very disappointed nobody has managed to make a user
>>>> friendly OS out of Linux. Linux would have needed someone with some
>>>> (and only some) of the qualities of Bill Gates. Then, our lives
>>>> today really might be different.
>>> There have been many OS! The problem is making a user friendly OS
>>> isn't easy and the only ones who has made it work on the PC at least
>>> has been MS. The door is open for anybody else to do so. Problem is,
>>> nobody can as of yet.

>> That is my biggest regret

>
> Others have tried and I believe Apple has come the closest. Unfortunately it
> requires a high priced Apple BIOS.
>
>>>> No offense meant, of course!
>>> None taken and hopefully neither have you.

>> None at all, I have learnt to appreciate your knowledge and respect
>> your views, even when they differ from mines. I consider you a cyber
>> friend with whom I share a lot, passion, interests, age (!) and
>> living in the middle of nowhere, except for the fact I have wired
>> broadband!
>> Regards

>
> Same here John. I have DSL only because my rural road was wired and none
> of the others were (no cable out here either). Why I don't know why my road
> was picked (oldest wiring maybe and they rewired it)? But it is only 384kb
> which sure beats dialup (I'm 7 miles away from the switching station and it
> is a miracle it works at all). So I can't complain too much.
>


Hi Bill,

Just some points.

- Yes, indeed, learning how to use WP up to version 5.1 (the best ever)
was challenging at the beginning because of those short cuts (which did
not change much up to version 5.1). I know, I was an instructor for some
time of 5.1. So the learning curve was a little intimidating at first,
but once the initial fears went away, people loved the cleanliness of WP
and it power. That was lost after 5.1, no denying.

- Regarding the reveal codes, I can tell that there, your knowledge is
lacking: in WP, you always know why a given paragraph or word look as it
looks. Granted, if the reveal don't show on your screen, deleting can
change the formatting unpredictable, but it is instantly restored by
undeleting (so far, no difference with Word, ok) but then, you can
immediately tell why that happened by looking at the reveal codes. This
is where the important difference is. In Word, it is often *totally*
impossible to tell why the formatting changes. I know first hand, it is
my work horse as a translator. In some cases, to restore the formatting
after a change I need to make to the text, I need to resort to very
clumsy work-arounds.

Granted, I am not the ultimate expert, but, if I refrain from saying *I
state facts* (I try to leave room for facts no to be exactly the way I
want them to be ...:=)), it is difficult to deny that formatting is one
the weak points of Word. Even with CrossEyes (know it? it does help),
understanding why changes happen in Word often remains a mystery.

- For the rest of your points, well, according to you, it boils down to
every business and activity behaving in a more or less predatory way the
way you see it and seem to consider "normal". Well, what is happening
those days tend to show that indeed, lots of people, at *all levels*,
behave without scrupules. If this is indeed true, it is a sorry state of
affairs, and the price we will pay and have started paying will be
enormous, far beyond what we imagine today.

I believe that companies which behave a minimum of honesty, respect and
dignity stand a better chance, if they are expertly managed, to survive
than predators.

If you are right, I do not belong to this way of doing business and I
want no part in it. I want to believe that what goes up goes down. Quite
some years ago, phone equalled ATT. Eventually, it got broken up. Of
course, today, few people realize they pay Windows each time they buy a
machine, when they could buy a stand-alone version and move it from
machine to machine, legally. Or more simply, a legal structure should
allow them to transfer their licence to a new machine equipped with
Windows. They get robbed blind, and people have come to think this is
normal. It is not!

You may consider this is the way things work in all respects, well, it
should be that way and although I cannot do much more than voicing my
dislike and refusing to go that route when I can, I still try and do not
consider this is a normal state of affairs.

Believe me, I am not an idealistic, I am very pragmatic, but the way
things evolve today irritates me a lot!

But this kind of thing are best discussed around cups of coffee or a
glass of beer!

Best regards
--
John Doue
 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008, 10:12 PM
In news:CU31l.26$(E-Mail Removed),
John Doue typed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:58:10 GMT:
> Hi Bill,


Hi John!

> Just some points.


Okay.

> - Yes, indeed, learning how to use WP up to version 5.1 (the best
> ever) was challenging at the beginning because of those short cuts
> (which did not change much up to version 5.1). I know, I was an
> instructor for some time of 5.1. So the learning curve was a little
> intimidating at first, but once the initial fears went away, people
> loved the cleanliness of WP and it power. That was lost after 5.1, no
> denying.


You don't have any WordStar experience, do you? WordStar used what they
called dot commands, which is very much like reveal codes. WordStar also had
nondocument mode, something I wished that WP had. Non-document mode was very
much like Notepad. No formatting except end of line allowed.

> - Regarding the reveal codes, I can tell that there, your knowledge is
> lacking:


Oh it looks like I nailed it there to me.

> in WP, you always know why a given paragraph or word look as
> it looks. Granted, if the reveal don't show on your screen, deleting
> can change the formatting unpredictable, but it is instantly restored
> by undeleting (so far, no difference with Word, ok) but then, you can
> immediately tell why that happened by looking at the reveal codes.
> This is where the important difference is. In Word, it is often
> *totally* impossible to tell why the formatting changes. I know first
> hand, it is my work horse as a translator. In some cases, to restore
> the formatting after a change I need to make to the text, I need to
> resort to very clumsy work-arounds.


This is true about Word, although you have indicators of what the formatting
is being applied. No need to view hidden codes as long as you click there or
move the cursor there.

> Granted, I am not the ultimate expert, but, if I refrain from saying
> *I state facts* (I try to leave room for facts no to be exactly the
> way I want them to be ...:=)), it is difficult to deny that
> formatting is one the weak points of Word.


Well sorry about that, but it does seem very clear to me and I will change
if I am shown that I am in error.

> Even with CrossEyes (know
> it? it does help), understanding why changes happen in Word often
> remains a mystery.


Nope, CrossEyes is new to me.

> - For the rest of your points, well, according to you, it boils down
> to every business and activity behaving in a more or less predatory
> way the way you see it and seem to consider "normal". Well, what is
> happening those days tend to show that indeed, lots of people, at
> *all levels*, behave without scrupules. If this is indeed true, it is
> a sorry state of affairs, and the price we will pay and have started
> paying will be enormous, far beyond what we imagine today.


Well yes! I have seen it from both sides and I still feel those whom want to
protect their proprietary ways, has a right to do so. Whether I personally
like it or not. And I generally don't.

Although I am not a *big* fan of open source either. As open source is a
very lazy way to get the job done. As nobody is responsible and nobody to
blame when things goes wrong. I used to program all of the time back in the
late 70's and most of the 80's. But we didn't call it open source, we just
called it sharing.

> I believe that companies which behave a minimum of honesty, respect
> and dignity stand a better chance, if they are expertly managed, to
> survive than predators.


I said this for many years, but I am not sure you have heard this. To me, it
is very easy to break Microsoft. First you have to be smart. Second you have
to be non-greedy. And I forgot what the third thing is right now. I just
post it on the Dell USENET newsgroup a few weeks back. But the first two are
most important anyway.

> If you are right, I do not belong to this way of doing business and I
> want no part in it. I want to believe that what goes up goes down.
> Quite some years ago, phone equalled ATT. Eventually, it got broken
> up.


Did you agree with the break up of AT&T?

> Of course, today, few people realize they pay Windows each time
> they buy a machine, when they could buy a stand-alone version and
> move it from machine to machine, legally. Or more simply, a legal
> structure should allow them to transfer their licence to a new
> machine equipped with Windows. They get robbed blind, and people have
> come to think this is normal. It is not!


John, I just bought 4 EeePCs without any MS software. I don't buy this
argument for a second. If there is a market for non-Microsoft machines,
there would be a market for them. But the truth is, most consumers want
Windows and that is the way it is. Those wanting something else is
interesting, but not profitable.

> You may consider this is the way things work in all respects, well, it
> should be that way and although I cannot do much more than voicing my
> dislike and refusing to go that route when I can, I still try and do
> not consider this is a normal state of affairs.


There are lots of things that are great and great ideas that gets canned.
The reason is if the profit isn't there and it is canned. I don't like this
either, but this is how it works.

> Believe me, I am not an idealistic, I am very pragmatic, but the way
> things evolve today irritates me a lot!


Same here.

> But this kind of thing are best discussed around cups of coffee or a
> glass of beer!


You bet!

> Best regards
> --
> John Doue


--
Best regards
Bill
3 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux


 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008, 11:04 PM
In news:(E-Mail Removed),
AJL typed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:18:35 -0700:
> John Doue <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> few people realize they pay Windows each time they buy a
>> machine,

>
> The OEM Windows (that is locked to the machine it comes in) is much
> cheaper than the stand alone Windows version.


About 4 to 5 times cheaper. So you would have to buy 4 to 5 machines just to
pay for one retail copy of Windows.

>> when they could buy a stand-alone version and move it from
>> machine to machine, legally.

>
> For the average user like me who keeps the same laptop/desktop for
> several years I think the OEM version is the better choice. Not only
> is it much cheaper but by the time the laptop needs updating with a
> newer version so does the OS.


So true AJL!

>> Or more simply, a legal structure should allow them to transfer
>> their licence to a new machine equipped with Windows.

>
> If the OEM version could be transferred it would no longer be cheap.


So true AJL!

>> They get robbed blind, and people have come to think this is
>> normal. It is not!

>
> I think US$50 is a fair price for the XP OS in this laptop. Heck I
> just paid $40 for some tax software that will be useless after I use
> it once. (I came to $50 OS estimate because that was the difference
> between the price of this laptop in XP and Linux when I bought it.)


So true AJL!

>> I cannot do much more than voicing my dislike
>> and refusing to go that route when I can,

>
> You can avoid Windows altogether. There are several alternative OS's
> that will do almost anything Windows will do. I have one such Linux
> laptop. It is definitely more difficult in many respects but still is
> quite useable. Being a small netbook it is a great traveler...


Yes so true. I just bought four of them without Windows. So they do exists.


--
Bill
3 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Doue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2008, 07:27 AM
AJL wrote:
> John Doue <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> few people realize they pay Windows each time they buy a
>> machine,

>
> The OEM Windows (that is locked to the machine it comes in) is much
> cheaper than the stand alone Windows version.



Who does not know that :=) ?

>
>> when they could buy a stand-alone version and move it from
>> machine to machine, legally.

>
> For the average user like me who keeps the same laptop/desktop for
> several years I think the OEM version is the better choice. Not only
> is it much cheaper but by the time the laptop needs updating with a
> newer version so does the OS.


Since XP came, you did not buy another machine?

If you were satisfied to get XP Home instead of Professional and to be
forced to buy Vista when most (or, conservatively, a lot of) users don't
want it. Or when you forced to get XP Media Center which has
compatibility problems with the regular version and some software.
>
>> Or more simply, a legal structure should allow them to transfer their licence
>> to a new machine equipped with Windows.

>
> If the OEM version could be transferred it would no longer be cheap.


At least, you would have a choice. Do you feel MS actually gives you the
choice to decline Windows when you buy a new machine? Try to do it and
let me know.

>
>> They get robbed blind, and people have come to think this is
>> normal. It is not!

>
> I think US$50 is a fair price for the XP OS in this laptop. Heck I
> just paid $40 for some tax software that will be useless after I use
> it once. (I came to $50 OS estimate because that was the difference
> between the price of this laptop in XP and Linux when I bought it.)


I agree as long as I pay for it once only.
>
>> I cannot do much more than voicing my dislike
>> and refusing to go that route when I can,

>
> You can avoid Windows altogether. There are several alternative OS's
> that will do almost anything Windows will do.


You know very well only a tiny minority (don't count me in it) have the
knowledge and ressources to seriously do anything with anything other
than Windows, and Mac (which I do not know).

Anyway, Bill and you seem to be comfortable with the situation as it is,
I am not. MS does not come anymore with good and innovative products
(look at the failure of Vista which sells only because MS says it will
discontinue support for XP, and not for its own merits, and Word 2007)
and when it tries to venture out of its usual turf, it gets dismal
results (communications, security, search, Internet). Buying others
ideas does not seem to work anymore.

But of course, there is little I can do about this situation except
refuse to jump in the band wagon!
--
John Doue
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Doue
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2008, 07:32 AM
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
> AJL typed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:18:35 -0700:
>> John Doue <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> few people realize they pay Windows each time they buy a
>>> machine,

>> The OEM Windows (that is locked to the machine it comes in) is much
>> cheaper than the stand alone Windows version.

>
> About 4 to 5 times cheaper. So you would have to buy 4 to 5 machines just to
> pay for one retail copy of Windows.
>
>>> when they could buy a stand-alone version and move it from
>>> machine to machine, legally.

>> For the average user like me who keeps the same laptop/desktop for
>> several years I think the OEM version is the better choice. Not only
>> is it much cheaper but by the time the laptop needs updating with a
>> newer version so does the OS.

>
> So true AJL!
>
>>> Or more simply, a legal structure should allow them to transfer
>>> their licence to a new machine equipped with Windows.

>> If the OEM version could be transferred it would no longer be cheap.

>
> So true AJL!
>
>>> They get robbed blind, and people have come to think this is
>>> normal. It is not!

>> I think US$50 is a fair price for the XP OS in this laptop. Heck I
>> just paid $40 for some tax software that will be useless after I use
>> it once. (I came to $50 OS estimate because that was the difference
>> between the price of this laptop in XP and Linux when I bought it.)

>
> So true AJL!
>
>>> I cannot do much more than voicing my dislike
>>> and refusing to go that route when I can,

>> You can avoid Windows altogether. There are several alternative OS's
>> that will do almost anything Windows will do. I have one such Linux
>> laptop. It is definitely more difficult in many respects but still is
>> quite useable. Being a small netbook it is a great traveler...

>
> Yes so true. I just bought four of them without Windows. So they do exists.
>
>

Bill,

Since I replied to AJL, I won't go again into this except to say that
when ATT got broken up, I did not have enough knowledge about the
situation to form a valid opinion, and I was concerned about the
consequences from a user standpoint.

Today, I think this was a good move. Just consider what the situation
would be if there was only one major ISP in the world, only one mobile
phone manufacturer, only Symbian 60 and you will understand why I regret
the lack of actual competition in the OS and software fields.

I think this thread tends to monopolize this NG and that it is about
time we find another exciting one. This NG seems to be dying slowly ...

Regards

--
John Doue
 
Reply With Quote
 
BillW50
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2008, 06:58 PM
In news:VFn1l.6$(E-Mail Removed),
John Doue typed on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:27:49 GMT:
> AJL wrote:
>> John Doue <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> few people realize they pay Windows each time they buy a
>>> machine,

>>
>> The OEM Windows (that is locked to the machine it comes in) is much
>> cheaper than the stand alone Windows version.

>
>
> Who does not know that :=) ?
>
>>
>>> when they could buy a stand-alone version and move it from
>>> machine to machine, legally.

>>
>> For the average user like me who keeps the same laptop/desktop for
>> several years I think the OEM version is the better choice. Not only
>> is it much cheaper but by the time the laptop needs updating with a
>> newer version so does the OS.

>
> Since XP came, you did not buy another machine?


I actually bought 7 machines in the last 2 years. 5 of them this year alone.
Four of them had no MS software installed at all.

> If you were satisfied to get XP Home instead of Professional and to be
> forced to buy Vista when most (or, conservatively, a lot of) users
> don't want it. Or when you forced to get XP Media Center which has
> compatibility problems with the regular version and some software.


I bought five machines this year and none of them had Vista on them.

>>> Or more simply, a legal structure should allow them to transfer
>>> their licence to a new machine equipped with Windows.

>>
>> If the OEM version could be transferred it would no longer be cheap.

>
> At least, you would have a choice. Do you feel MS actually gives you
> the choice to decline Windows when you buy a new machine? Try to do
> it and let me know.


Yes some manufactures do give you a choice. As long as they are profitable,
you can find them.

>>> They get robbed blind, and people have come to think this is
>>> normal. It is not!

>>
>> I think US$50 is a fair price for the XP OS in this laptop. Heck I
>> just paid $40 for some tax software that will be useless after I use
>> it once. (I came to $50 OS estimate because that was the difference
>> between the price of this laptop in XP and Linux when I bought it.)

>
> I agree as long as I pay for it once only.


You don't even have to pay in the first place if you don't want it. As four
out of five computers I bought came with Xandros Linux instead of Windows
XP. I wonder what that costs me? They all came with Windows drivers though.


>>> I cannot do much more than voicing my dislike
>>> and refusing to go that route when I can,

>>
>> You can avoid Windows altogether. There are several alternative OS's
>> that will do almost anything Windows will do.

>
> You know very well only a tiny minority (don't count me in it) have
> the knowledge and ressources to seriously do anything with anything
> other than Windows, and Mac (which I do not know).


You can buy computers with Linux installed all ready to go. No drivers to
find or anything.

> Anyway, Bill and you seem to be comfortable with the situation as it
> is, I am not. MS does not come anymore with good and innovative
> products (look at the failure of Vista which sells only because MS
> says it will discontinue support for XP, and not for its own merits,
> and Word 2007) and when it tries to venture out of its usual turf, it
> gets dismal results (communications, security, search, Internet).
> Buying others ideas does not seem to work anymore.
>
> But of course, there is little I can do about this situation except
> refuse to jump in the band wagon!


I am running Linux on some of my computers. Although my Windows XP computers
I can do a lot more. And well worth the extra $40 to $50 too.

--
Bill
3 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best place to ask dumbish C questions? Martin Griffith Embedded 13 02-26-2008 09:19 PM
purchased xps410 so I won't ask so many questions :) RnR Dell 0 01-15-2007 12:48 AM
Dont ask these Dell india idiots anything, You might as well go ask your dog John Dell 8 03-25-2006 06:24 AM
I kindly ask for your help! Laptop problems. dejavue82@yahoo.com Laptops 0 01-20-2005 07:25 AM
Steve Ballmer, Windows 1.0 salesman Yousuf Khan Intel 5 10-06-2004 09:29 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 AM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment