What's wrong with Microsoft

[Tom]

I am basing that characterization on the original poster's view, not mine.
Read again his description of his "fellow Green Party members"

"Clearly the worst are my fellow Green Party members. They've lost
their minds completely and have been reduced to shutting themselves in
dark closets where they're probably curled up in the fetal position,
lying a puddle of their own drool. Not only have they lost their sense
of humor but all manner of common sense and reality as well."

*If* I felt that way about a certain group of people, I would not
associate myself with them, would you?

Not the point, the point is your stance of whom you associate by whatever is
the "suit your then socialities " du jour. But try and use some logic here
Lee; would you refer to people as your "fellows" if they were then deemed
mad, and of lost minds, and whatnot else? It doesn't deserve a reply on your
part if you read it as it states (if they are his fellows). If you are, how
you say you are in your last response to me!

 

[Lee Chapelle]

"I would prefer the company of some criminals to mindless, senseless,
humourless, drooling Green Party associates."

The operative difference there was "some" criminals vs "vicious" criminals.
All criminals are not war criminals nor are they torturers, some people are
criminals because they smoke marijuana.

Please make up your mind!

There was no waffling there. David presented a false dilemma fallacy when
he proposed that I must prefer the company of criminals if I choose to avoid
members of The Green Party. I responded that indeed I *would* prefer the
company of "some" criminals over people who I viewed as harshly as our
poster views the Greens. He extended the fallacy in his next reply, that is
when I decided to call him on it. "Some" criminals, not torturers, in my
view, would make better company than shrill extremists, although being bored
by a Green Party member may be construed as torture in many circles.

Lee

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Not the point,

Ah, but it is precisely the point I was making.

the point is your stance of whom you associate by whatever is the "suit
your then socialities " du jour. But try and use some logic here Lee;
would you refer to people as your "fellows" if they were then deemed mad,
and of lost minds, and whatnot else? It doesn't deserve a reply on your
part if you read it as it states (if they are his fellows). If you are,
how you say you are in your last response to me!

I'm sorry, I didn't get any of that.

Allow me to restate. He referred to The Greens as "his fellows", implying
that he is one of them, policially. Then he proceeded to characterize them
as essentially stark raving mad. Do you not see something oddly
contradictory in that?

But I think we have strayed far off topic, and it's largely my fault.

 

[Lee Chapelle]

After catching this from you,

"I would prefer the company of some criminals to mindless, senseless,
humourless, drooling Green Party associates."

You either forgetful of your statements, or you're a bald faced liar, that
goes along with the rest of the sheep and lemmings; I think it is the
latter!

You're making a false assumption, that I feel negatively towards all
criminals.

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Seems a shame that every time MS tries to include some nice feature in
Windows, the EU sues them for unfair trade.

How would you like to own Adaware, selling your Pro product to businesses,
and then have some mega-monopolistic OS developer start giving out a
comparable [though in my opinion, not as good] product to all its
customers for free.

It is clearly a restraint of trade in the small business market for
AntiSpyware products.

It certainly must be devastating to those companies. MS Antispyware is
pretty good, I can see it putting the other pay ones OB. This is absolutely
nothing new. remember Netscape, Microsoft has been relentless in their quest
to include and integrate every essential tool into their Windows operating
systems. How do you think Winzip feels about Compressed Folders? Next is the
built-in anti-virus, that'll be part of the next OS. MS certainly seems
merciless in this respect. Bill Gates' sympathy is all directed at the
clueless user who knows nothing of protecting himself, and he is determined
to have Windows do it for him.

 

[Tom]

Ah, but it is precisely the point I was making.


I'm sorry, I didn't get any of that.

Go figure!

Allow me to restate. He referred to The Greens as "his fellows", implying
that he is one of them, policially. Then he proceeded to characterize them
as essentially stark raving mad. Do you not see something oddly
contradictory in that?

Then do you not see that replying is pointless???? LOGIC!!!

But I think we have strayed far off topic, and it's largely my fault.

yep

 

[Tom]

You're making a false assumption, that I feel negatively towards all
criminals.

LMAO! if only they don't prop up your political/sociological point of of
view!

Then you had better get improving of making spins.

Again, people are bad; criminals, whatever because they are bad, and they
should be deemed as such, but not in a light that is favorable to ones
biased leanings. This is what you expose about yourself..

Your logic is so worthless that calling it revealing would be an
understatement!

Firstly, you cannot say (as you do), "I would prefer the company of some
criminals", to then say that, "that I feel negatively towards all
criminals." It is so contradictory, and more to the point, just like the
thinking kind that you represent. You either don't like criminals, or you
do, there is no picking and choosing!

I know you'll reply with (yet) another spin. (are you a Bush supporter?)

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Go figure!

The paragraph is pretty much unintelligible, but I'll take a wild stab...Am
I to understand that you believe he is admitting that he is also mad?

Then do you not see that replying is pointless???? LOGIC!!!

I don't believe he considers himself to be mad, what's more I don't perceive
him to be mad. Therefore we're back to my original observation, why does he
associate himself with people he considers to be mad?

yep

Hold on a moment, OK for me to say, but let's be fair, I made a one-line
comment, not to YOU, to *somebody else*, YOU took it upon yourself to take
up the challenge. Where is the ON topic content in your replies to me?

 

[David Candy]

He is getting sorry that he ever mentioned it.

It caused others to have a "serious attack"

 

[Tom]

[..]

It's sad that you would associate yourself with such people.


Why, is it normal "only" sad that people associate themselves on
with one that you don't?

If I perceived a group of people to be insane, closed-minded,
humourless, and devoid of all common sense, I would not join them
and call them my "fellows". Rather I would disassociate myself with
such people and associate with sane, open-minded folks with lots of
common sense and a sense of humour, assuming I could locate such a
group.

Honestly, that is being fairly narrow minded!

Well, I wouldn't have them prosecuted! I believe they have the right
to lock themselves in closets if that's what they want to do.

Anyhow, that is indicative of the qualities of how slavery, gender
discrimination, witch hunts, etc all came to be. Do you associate
yourself with those kind of people?

I believe you are courting a fallacy. Just because I would prefer
not_to associate myself with an organization of drooling ninnies
does not imply that would seek out disreputable types, in fact it
implies that I have good judgment and would seek out a solid
sensible group of people with whom to associate myself.

Of course referring to others not of your liking (or like you)
"drooling ninnies" is an indicator of a disreputable fellow. I base
people on principle, not by their political, religious, or social
leanings. People can be bad (or ninnies) in any kind of group
setting. But leaning to one side simply because of your perceived
attributes of the *others*, is indicative of a ninny that calls other
ninnies!

I am basing that characterization on the original poster's view, not
mine. Read again his description of his "fellow Green Party members"

"Clearly the worst are my fellow Green Party members. They've lost
their minds completely and have been reduced to shutting themselves in
dark closets where they're probably curled up in the fetal position,
lying a puddle of their own drool. Not only have they lost their
sense
of humor but all manner of common sense and reality as well."

*If* I felt that way about a certain group of people, I would not
associate myself with them, would you?

Not the point,

Ah, but it is precisely the point I was making.

the point is your stance of whom you associate by whatever is the "suit
your then socialities " du jour. But try and use some logic here Lee;
would you refer to people as your "fellows" if they were then deemed
mad, and of lost minds, and whatnot else? It doesn't deserve a reply on
your part if you read it as it states (if they are his fellows). If you
are, how you say you are in your last response to me!

I'm sorry, I didn't get any of that.

Go figure!

The paragraph is pretty much unintelligible, but I'll take a wild
stab...Am I to understand that you believe he is admitting that he is also
mad?

Then do you not see that replying is pointless???? LOGIC!!!

I don't believe he considers himself to be mad, what's more I don't
perceive him to be mad. Therefore we're back to my original observation,
why does he associate himself with people he considers to be mad?

yep

Hold on a moment, OK for me to say, but let's be fair, I made a one-line
comment, not to YOU, to *somebody else*, YOU took it upon yourself to take
up the challenge. Where is the ON topic content in your replies to me?

Bullcrap! You made comments in this thread that was (part of) the change
from the original topic, I replied to your comment, hence the discussion at
hand, and you changed up your stance in the process. Kinda like Bush stating
claims about WMDs, then terrorists in Iraq, to then, "Well, we need to just
Rid of a tyrant". Like Bush, you are sounding like a chorus line of excuses!

My replies to you were on topic to your reply to the off toipic posts you
were making.

If you find my replies are off topic to yours, then it is just another spin,
in a poor by you to attempt to avoid looking like the liar you are.

 

[Lee Chapelle]

I note that you abandoned the main topic we were discussing, good move.

Bullcrap! You made comments in this thread that was (part of) the change
from the original topic, I replied to your comment, hence the discussion
at hand, and you changed up your stance in the process.

I never changed my stance.

Kinda like Bush stating claims about WMDs, then terrorists in Iraq, to
then, "Well, we need to just Rid of a tyrant". Like Bush, you are sounding
like a chorus line of excuses!

My replies to you were on topic to your reply to the off topic posts you
were making.

The political comments were off topic to begin with, I commented, and so did
you. It's ALL off-topic chum.

If you find my replies are off topic to yours, then it is just another
spin, in a poor by you to attempt to avoid looking like the liar you are.

My, my, you are quite the little hothead aren't you?

 

[Lee Chapelle]

"David Candy" <.> wrote
He is getting sorry that he ever mentioned it.

It caused others to have a "serious attack"

Yea, what's with Tom? I think I pushed the implode button.

 

[kurttrail]

The operative difference there was "some" criminals vs "vicious"
criminals. All criminals are not war criminals nor are they
torturers, some people are criminals because they smoke marijuana.


There was no waffling there. David presented a false dilemma fallacy
when he proposed that I must prefer the company of criminals if I
choose to avoid members of The Green Party. I responded that indeed I
*would* prefer the company of "some" criminals over people who I
viewed as harshly as our poster views the Greens. He extended the
fallacy in his next reply, that is when I decided to call him on it.
"Some" criminals, not torturers, in my view, would make better
company than shrill extremists, although being bored by a Green Party
member may be construed as torture in many circles.
Lee

Actually I believe you didn't understand David from the beginning.
David was always talking about the political criminals that are running
America, as opposed to loons wearing green, though you'd have to know
David a little to have picked up his implictation.

His question was which do you prefer, the company Mainstream American
politicians, the war criminals running America, or some harmless
Greenies.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Seems a shame that every time MS tries to include some nice feature
in Windows, the EU sues them for unfair trade.

How would you like to own Adaware, selling your Pro product to
businesses, and then have some mega-monopolistic OS developer start
giving out a comparable [though in my opinion, not as good] product
to all its customers for free.

It is clearly a restraint of trade in the small business market for
AntiSpyware products.

It certainly must be devastating to those companies. MS Antispyware is
pretty good, I can see it putting the other pay ones OB. This is
absolutely nothing new. remember Netscape, Microsoft has been
relentless in their quest to include and integrate every essential
tool into their Windows operating systems. How do you think Winzip
feels about Compressed Folders? Next is the built-in anti-virus,
that'll be part of the next OS. MS certainly seems merciless in this
respect. Bill Gates' sympathy is all directed at the clueless user
who knows nothing of protecting himself, and he is determined to have
Windows do it for him.

Bill Gates supposedly isn't running the company anymore, but even if he
his, what middleware that has been added under his stewardship, and by
the present regime, isn't for the altruistic reasons you ascribe to
them. It's to maximized MS's stranglehold on the OS Market.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Actually I believe you didn't understand David from the beginning. David
was always talking about the political criminals that are running America,
as opposed to loons wearing green, though you'd have to know David a
little to have picked up his implictation.

His question was which do you prefer, the company Mainstream American
politicians, the war criminals running America, or some harmless Greenies.

Aha.. I am finally getting it. I think I'll decline the company of both and
stick with my little group of computer geeks ;^)

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Richard Goh wrote:
Seems a shame that every time MS tries to include some nice feature
in Windows, the EU sues them for unfair trade.

How would you like to own Adaware, selling your Pro product to
businesses, and then have some mega-monopolistic OS developer start
giving out a comparable [though in my opinion, not as good] product
to all its customers for free.

It is clearly a restraint of trade in the small business market for
AntiSpyware products.

It certainly must be devastating to those companies. MS Antispyware is
pretty good, I can see it putting the other pay ones OB. This is
absolutely nothing new. remember Netscape, Microsoft has been
relentless in their quest to include and integrate every essential
tool into their Windows operating systems. How do you think Winzip
feels about Compressed Folders? Next is the built-in anti-virus,
that'll be part of the next OS. MS certainly seems merciless in this
respect. Bill Gates' sympathy is all directed at the clueless user
who knows nothing of protecting himself, and he is determined to have
Windows do it for him.

Bill Gates supposedly isn't running the company anymore, but even if he
his, what middleware that has been added under his stewardship, and by the
present regime, isn't for the altruistic reasons you ascribe to them.
It's to maximized MS's stranglehold on the OS Market.

Gates' vision is still a guiding force in everything Microsoft does. I tend
to disagree with you on the last point. Yes they enjoy their dominant
position in the OS market, but there really has been very little around to
challenge that position. The existence of "middleware" like Winzip,
Netscape, Anti-spyware, Java, etc.. have not challenged the Microsoft
Windows OS position of dominance, they just make Windows users dependent on
obtaining add-ons to make their system safe and usable. You and I would have
no problems loading a bare-bones Windows OS then adding all the device
drivers, free or cheap addons and protections necessary to bring a system to
an optimal condition. 9x% of people do not have the ability to do that, so
they struggle, their systems suffer and crash, their "Windows experience" is
an less than satisfactory one. You and I have a huge advantage over most
people. Bill Gates has always wanted to eliminate that advantage. He wants
*every* Windows user to have that good experience, not only the techophiles.
I have heard him speak a couple of times, and in both cases this same
message came through load and clear. Yes, that will make everyone love their
computer, and their Windows®, but that is not a bad goal per se.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

Poor Boy wrote:

I'd suggest Star Downloader (free, clean) or the downloader that's
built into Firefox 1.0

Why should Microsoft add a pure snake oil product to slow things down even more?

Some things that downloaders can do are snake oil (e.g. fiddling with
net settings, that may or may not help) but others are really good:

1) Start same file download at multiple points

2) Resume interrupted downloads

Item (1) is effective, especially on dialup! It's like travelling on
a multi-lane highway, and works because often the server connection
does not saturate even the modest bandwidth of a DUN connection. Star
Downloader can boost the rate from 1.2k - 2k or so, to 4k or better;
that translates to 40kbits per second, of the modem's typically 49kbs.

Item (2) lets Internet downloading finally catch up with what Zmodem
has offered DOS-era direct-dial BBS users for decades.

I guess MS has forgotten DUN users, perhaps on the basis that those
too poor to afford broadband aren't likely to spend on anything else.

---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
ideal for experimentation!

 

[kurttrail]

Richard Goh wrote:
Seems a shame that every time MS tries to include some nice
feature in Windows, the EU sues them for unfair trade.

How would you like to own Adaware, selling your Pro product to
businesses, and then have some mega-monopolistic OS developer start
giving out a comparable [though in my opinion, not as good] product
to all its customers for free.

It is clearly a restraint of trade in the small business market for
AntiSpyware products.

It certainly must be devastating to those companies. MS Antispyware
is pretty good, I can see it putting the other pay ones OB. This is
absolutely nothing new. remember Netscape, Microsoft has been
relentless in their quest to include and integrate every essential
tool into their Windows operating systems. How do you think Winzip
feels about Compressed Folders? Next is the built-in anti-virus,
that'll be part of the next OS. MS certainly seems merciless in this
respect. Bill Gates' sympathy is all directed at the clueless user
who knows nothing of protecting himself, and he is determined to
have Windows do it for him.

Bill Gates supposedly isn't running the company anymore, but even if
he his, what middleware that has been added under his stewardship,
and by the present regime, isn't for the altruistic reasons you
ascribe to them. It's to maximized MS's stranglehold on the OS
Market.

Gates' vision is still a guiding force in everything Microsoft does.
I tend to disagree with you on the last point. Yes they enjoy their
dominant position in the OS market, but there really has been very
little around to challenge that position. The existence of
"middleware" like Winzip, Netscape, Anti-spyware, Java, etc.. have
not challenged the Microsoft Windows OS position of dominance, they
just make Windows users dependent on obtaining add-ons to make their
system safe and usable. You and I would have no problems loading a
bare-bones Windows OS then adding all the device drivers, free or
cheap addons and protections necessary to bring a system to an
optimal condition. 9x% of people do not have the ability to do that,
so they struggle, their systems suffer and crash, their "Windows
experience" is an less than satisfactory one. You and I have a huge
advantage over most people. Bill Gates has always wanted to eliminate
that advantage. He wants *every* Windows user to have that good
experience, not only the techophiles. I have heard him speak a couple
of times, and in both cases this same message came through load and
clear. Yes, that will make everyone love their computer, and their
Windows®, but that is not a bad goal per se.

Personally, I think your taking Bill Gates, the person, Bill Gates, the
business man, and MS, the corporate entity, and putting them into a
confused bundle and thinking of them as one entity.

BG, the man, seems to be a very altruistic person. BG, the business
man, has done some rather unscrupulous things to build up MS, the
corporate entity. MS isn't one individual anymore, it a corporate
multi-headed leviathan that doesn't have just one mind.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

The fact remains, that the prime directive of the Windows division is to
reach the point where the average person can run Windows "out of the box"
and have the same satisifying and trouble-free experience with it that the
techno-geek does. This comes down from Bill Gates and imbues everything the
leviathan does.

I welcome the day when some OS vendor does that and succeeds at it.

 

[Lee Chapelle]

Lee Chapelle wrote:

Richard Goh wrote:
Seems a shame that every time MS tries to include some nice
feature in Windows, the EU sues them for unfair trade.

How would you like to own Adaware, selling your Pro product to
businesses, and then have some mega-monopolistic OS developer start
giving out a comparable [though in my opinion, not as good] product
to all its customers for free.

It is clearly a restraint of trade in the small business market for
AntiSpyware products.

It certainly must be devastating to those companies. MS Antispyware
is pretty good, I can see it putting the other pay ones OB. This is
absolutely nothing new. remember Netscape, Microsoft has been
relentless in their quest to include and integrate every essential
tool into their Windows operating systems. How do you think Winzip
feels about Compressed Folders? Next is the built-in anti-virus,
that'll be part of the next OS. MS certainly seems merciless in this
respect. Bill Gates' sympathy is all directed at the clueless user
who knows nothing of protecting himself, and he is determined to
have Windows do it for him.

Bill Gates supposedly isn't running the company anymore, but even if
he his, what middleware that has been added under his stewardship,
and by the present regime, isn't for the altruistic reasons you
ascribe to them. It's to maximized MS's stranglehold on the OS
Market.

Gates' vision is still a guiding force in everything Microsoft does.
I tend to disagree with you on the last point. Yes they enjoy their
dominant position in the OS market, but there really has been very
little around to challenge that position. The existence of
"middleware" like Winzip, Netscape, Anti-spyware, Java, etc.. have
not challenged the Microsoft Windows OS position of dominance, they
just make Windows users dependent on obtaining add-ons to make their
system safe and usable. You and I would have no problems loading a
bare-bones Windows OS then adding all the device drivers, free or
cheap addons and protections necessary to bring a system to an
optimal condition. 9x% of people do not have the ability to do that,
so they struggle, their systems suffer and crash, their "Windows
experience" is an less than satisfactory one. You and I have a huge
advantage over most people. Bill Gates has always wanted to eliminate
that advantage. He wants *every* Windows user to have that good
experience, not only the techophiles. I have heard him speak a couple
of times, and in both cases this same message came through load and
clear. Yes, that will make everyone love their computer, and their
Windows®, but that is not a bad goal per se.

Personally, I think your taking Bill Gates, the person, Bill Gates, the
business man, and MS, the corporate entity, and putting them into a
confused bundle and thinking of them as one entity.

I think you would be surprised to what extent he still exercises control
over the direction of the company. His vision *is* Microsoft and probably
will be after he dies.

BG, the man, seems to be a very altruistic person.

No doubt.

BG, the business man, has done some rather unscrupulous things to build up
MS, the corporate entity.

He has leveraged the dominant position of Windows in ways that have been
seen to be monopolistic. I can't disagree with that. Sometimes they seem to
take the view that the ends justify the means.

MS isn't one individual anymore, it a corporate multi-headed leviathan
that doesn't have just one mind.

The fact remains, that the prime directive of the Windows division is to
reach the point where the average person can run Windows "out of the box"
and have the same satisifying and trouble-free experience with it that the
techno-geek does. This comes down from Bill Gates and imbues everything the
leviathan does.