Repair Install and bypassing Activation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

snip
>
> I am very Capitalist. I do not want to see them fail. A part and parcel of
> Capitalism is when you sell someone a product, nothing should be hidden from
> them. You never sell your customer products you know have defects unless
> you let them know what those defects or limitations are. If you made
> errors in the product you should refund the purchase price or at least a
> depreciated purchase price, or let people it is "as is". (Up front and in
> BIG LETTERS.) Business, in order to work, has to adhere to laws and ethics.
> I do not believe that Microsoft adheres to the law, or ethical practice in
> this case. Laws and ethics are the structure business, good business, is
> built upon. I just don't see Microsoft doing that. In fact in all of this
> I hope that they reform and get down to making good deals. (A good deal is
> where the Customer is satisfied and the Business is satisfied after the
> transaction. I don't see that normally with Microsoft's operating systems.)
> Those businesses that fail to adhere to this good deal will go out of
> business unless they have a monopoly on something. (Microsoft so far has
> come very close to that, but not yet.)
>
> Just as a comparison, look at another company. One in a business everyone
> currently hates. A drug company. Remember Johnson & Johnson during the
> Tylenol poisoning fiasco? The ethics of that company by recalling their
> product and replacing the packaging with tamper resistant packaging is an
> example of ethical business practices. (Heck, the issue was not even their
> fault, and they did it.) That is a company with ethics and one that I will
> buy product from and even give them more slack when other issues arise,
> because I know their ethical practices would not let them put out a
> defective product on purpose. There are many other examples.
>
Richard,

I love the point you are making. Products are seldom perfect, software
is seldom totally bug free, people are not perfect either. But, there
are different ways to make money. Bill Gates has displayed exceptional
vision and skills, no doubt about that. But it comes to the way he got
where he is, the word "predator" comes to mind. I believe in capitalism,
I do not believe in ruthlessness. MS could be a great company if it had
ethics as you say, not only money.

John Doue

 

[terry]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On 12/30/2004 7:52 PM On a whim, William J. Burlingame pounded out on
the keyboard

> It should be obvious that some are just yanking the chains of those
> who are so uptight about such an unimportant thing as how a response
> in posed. The NG police would probably be upset if a surgeon saved
> their life with open heart surgery, but failed to have the sutures
> spaced uniformly. Get a life! The purpose of the NG is to exchange
> technical information, form should be way down the list of importance.
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:02 -0800, Terry <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/30/2004 5:36 PM On a whim, Brian S. Craigie pounded out on the
>>keyboard
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Pierre,
>>>
>>>On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>>>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>>>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
>>>>and respond *after* the original points are made.
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
>>> that says top posting is not allowed?
>>>
>>>Thanks Pierre!
>>>
>>>Brian
>>
>>I think the point is that you do what is being done in a particular
>>group. If everyone top posts, then top post. It just makes a mess when
>>one person top posts and the next bottom posts. After a few threads you
>>can't tell who said what. So it's just to keep continuity.
>>
>>I don't even think trimming should be done a lot of times. That's
>>leaving it up to each individual as to what they feel is important. Most
>>posts don't go on for extreme amounts of time, so leaving everything
>>really doesn't hurt. But a thread of over 15 or so responses might be
>>cause for some discreet trimming. JMO...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

Yes and you top-posting while the context is bottom-posted would be more
akin to a heart surgeon going in through your rectum.

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On 31/12/2004 10:29, Cyclops wrote:


> I don't think you should leave the NG, but I think you should stop
> buggin others about it, same with the bottom posting nazi's out there.
> - --
> David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

Sorry. :-( Will do.

Have a nice New Year everyone!

Brian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> Hmmm...
>
> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this NG are you? ;-) Very funny.
>
> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Brian
>
> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>
>
>> Then post elsewhere.

Because, when you respond to a top-poster, the comment you are
responding to is not directly above your post, but is way at the
top of the thread tree, which (since many posters don't know how
to ship) can be a mile long. This means that your remarks and the
post you are remarking on appear unconnected. When you top-post,
it is discourteous to the *next* person who posts. That's the main
reason for not doing it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news4hBd.202535$Np3.8466946@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
>> NG are you? ;-) Very funny.
>>
>> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing
>> the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
>> preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
>> answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
>> jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?
>>
>> Warmest Regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then post elsewhere.
>
> Because, when you respond to a top-poster, the comment you are responding
> to is not directly above your post, but is way at the top of the thread
> tree, which (since many posters don't know how to ship) can be a mile
> long. This means that your remarks and the post you are remarking on
> appear unconnected. When you top-post, it is discourteous to the *next*
> person who posts. That's the main reason for not doing it.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

If it's done right, with some snipping done to keep it lean, bottom posting
is what makes the most sense. Original question or comment at the top, and
the latest answer following. Unless of course you read the back page of the
book first, do you?

If so, I'm sure you can find a newsgroup that encourages top posting
somewhere.

 

[Alias]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Terry" <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote
:
: Yes and you top-posting while the context is bottom-posted would be more
: akin to a heart surgeon going in through your rectum.
:
: --
: Terry

A heart surgeon can fit up a rectum? How so?
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Alias wrote:
> "Terry" <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>> Yes and you top-posting while the context is bottom-posted would be
>> more akin to a heart surgeon going in through your rectum.
>>
>
> A heart surgeon can fit up a rectum? How so?

He just needs to be limber because of the twists and turns.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alias wrote:
> A heart surgeon can fit up a rectum? How so?

Only if they are far smaller than average. And why on EARTH is this
being cross posted?
- --
David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

http://members.cox.net/dwhagar
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
http://genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/

"It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: http://members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkHV5S8ACgkQbPwf4VgkRDva5ACglLVm6OFVp9kIo74DaEvYOlNJ
oyIAniYz+ZV0SiyXzfjL3hcEEQr5DCbt
=jfzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bcraigie@bigfoot.com
says...
> Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
> Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.

Usenet was around long before MS ever thought about the internet and
Posting at the bottom permitted proper reading of any post. Posting in-
line or at the bottom has ALWAYS been the norm and proper when using
Usenet (you can check yourself, just search google for Usenet Eticate).

When MS made it possible for Outlook Express to access Usenet servers
the bastardization of posting became an epidemic - using a email program
for Usenet is just bad news for most people.

While the MS groups are mainly following any form of posting, the vast
majority of Usenet is still setup for doing a proper reply by snipping
the non-relevant parts and adding the reply at the bottom of the post.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bcraigie@bigfoot.com
> says...
>
>>Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
>>Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>
>
> Usenet was around long before MS ever thought about the internet and
> Posting at the bottom permitted proper reading of any post. Posting in-
> line or at the bottom has ALWAYS been the norm and proper when using
> Usenet (you can check yourself, just search google for Usenet Eticate).

Your search - "Usenet Eticate" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

To paraphrase:
I'm right and you're wrong. And here's proof...and that's wrong too...
Don't you just love the web...
mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:19:59 +0000, "Brian S. Craigie"

>Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
>Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.

Rubbish. The usenet standard is context-quotage; top posting is an
MSware convention, but it's not a world-wide standard.

The real PITA isn't so much top, middle or bottom posting, but failure
to edit (reduce) the quoted material. That seems to be a bigger
problem with top posters.



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:58:12 +0000, "Brian S. Craigie"

>Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
>preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
>answer?

It goes about the complexity of the answer, really.

If the reply isn't related to any particular part of the quoted post,
then for that reply, top or bottom is much the same. And I agree, I'd
rather see that reply "in my face" than have to scroll down.

Where things go sour, is when that reply is itself replied to. In
really busy newsgroups, one often loses posts and enters a thread
midway through - and in that situation, it's far easier to read from
the beginning to the end, rather than latest to oldest.

With complex replies, I prefer context quoting, as I'm doing here. It
allows one's comments to be linked to specific parts of the quoted
material, and with the sort of complex stuff we see here - details of
troubleshooting, etc. - that clarity can be essential.

>Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
>jumps to the bottom of the post?

Some news editors situate the edit point at the top, others at the
bottom. Free Agent (what I use) starts at the top, but I move down.

What's really annoying is where posters don't trim quoted material at
all, possibly out of laziness. Posters who are *that* lazy are
unlikely to move the edit position at all; they just start typing
wherever it happens to be - and I think this is what has given
top-posters a really bad name; not so much that they top post, but
that they don't trim the quoted material (which can be large).



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
A. Top posters ;-)
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

<snipped>
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c40d2e7a11c481a989dc9@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> Usenet (you can check yourself, just search google for Usenet Eticate).

Surely not spelt that way, maybe etiquette.
regards
Felicity

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
>> Richard Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of
>> > Microsoft Windows software:
>> >
>> > DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say
> they
>> > ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
>> > from
>> > CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.
>>
>> Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
>> given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that
>> time, I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from
>> CP/M" and not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is
>> simply
>> history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
>> current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent
> on
>> any part of DOS?
>>
>> > This is simply history. As I
>> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
> a
>> > in
>> > house designed and developed code to date.
>>
>> So where was NT designed and developed?
> I
> BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>>
>> > Not that I don't think they as
>> > a company can, it is just they haven't.
>> >
>> > None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
>> > perform as advertised.
>>
>> So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
>> quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.
>>
> Simply the fact they said it was an Operating system. The consumer has a
> right to expect that what they pay for is reliable. Aside from that,
> pulling out the old advertisments is a bit of a push, but I would bet that
> it said it was reliable.

When you know for sure get back to us. In any case, how do they define
"reliable"?

IBM called OS/360 an "operating system". It was so bad that they ended up
starting over from scratch. So I guess that it was a ripoff.

When someone figures out how to write an operating system that, by your
standards, is "reliable", then it will be reasonable to expect that an
operating system is "reliable" by your standards.

>> > Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
>> > SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
>> > poorly designed in the error handling area.
>>
>> The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe
>
>> that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
>> fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
>> then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.
>>
>> > With any of those you could
>> > load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
>> > would typically need to be rebooted.
>>
>> "Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah,
> I've
>> encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the
>> norm.
> Remember Microsoft's certification? I do.

Yes, I remember Microsoft's certification of particular hardware. What of
it? Was there a guarantee of "reliable" operation with "reliable" defined
according to your view? And "certified" does not mean "without flaw".
It's amazing how often swapping out RAM fixes Windows.

>> > NO other installed software. That
>> > is
>> > in my opinion is fraud.
>>
>> If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
>> nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
>> is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet
> ready
>> to take the bar exam.
>>
>> > It was not my first experience with computer
>> > system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first
> batch
>> > of
>> > C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack.
>> > But due
>> > to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide
>> > a
>> > free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and
>> > should have been criminally charged.
>>
>> So why didn't you sue them?
>>
>> > (Before that happened the public moved on
>> > to
>> > other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
>> > Microsoft into that catagory.
>> >
>> > As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for
> another
>> > option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now.
>> > As
> I
>> > gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One
> is
>> > my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
>> > doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF
>> > software and
>> > cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and
> the
>> > only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be
> converted
>> > in the future.
>> >
>> > By the way, I am a MCSE.
>>
>> You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
>> drawn. It's not something to be proud of.
>>
>> > Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
>> > Back
>> > office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from
> DEC's
>> > schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
>> > what
>> > they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built
> into
>> > its fundemental structure.
>>
>> Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without
>> fail"
>> then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to
>> come
>> up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
>> could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
>> into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
>> "Security" covers a lot of territory.
>>
>> > Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
>> > that
>> > put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has
> dissuaded
>> > from that opinion.
>>
>> Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
>> providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
>> unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first

> Oh, so anyone that expects things to work properly, and without fail when
> they spend their hard earned dollars has to take a CS course and write
> their own OS.

No, _you_ need to so that you understand why your standards are not
realistic.

> No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
> believe it is unrealistic, but others do not.

Who are these "others"?

> You therefore are the one
> the MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.

No, I am "the one" who has actually written an operating system, albeit a
simple one, and thus have a much better perspective on the issues involved
than you do.

>> operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
>> the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After
> you've
>> done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get
>> back to us.
>>
>> > Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
>> > systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.
>>
>> Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?
>>
> Linux, it is free - no charge - Can't say anyone that puts it out is a
> crook, because they do not charge for it. (This is only an example, I do
> not
> advocate using it without having some considerable experience.) There are
> distrubutions of other OS's based upon that core that are good as well,
> but you pay for their installation systems and aggration of drivers etc.

I see, so it's not the bugs to which you object but the fact that they
charge for it? So if Microsoft gave away Windows then you would be happy
with them?

>> > Within a decade I
>> > would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.
>
> MS box here is simply short hand for servers and desktops running Windows
> 2000 pro or XP pro. (As if someone of your obvious intelligence could not
> figure that out.)

Be precise in your writing and people will be less likely to misunderstand
you.

>> You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If
>> so,
> I
>> would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
>> you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS
>> boxes" are you running?
>>
> No Linux, Unix, etc. I have already started the process, and it
> progresses
> successfully. Oracle is taking over for Exchange as well, but I had
> nothing to do with that.

And what are you expecting out of this? If it is "reliability" then you
have a surprise coming.

>> > I am sure MS has
>> > no
>> > particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
>> > customer out of billions.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

>
> "William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
> news:ljt8t0t2i9ov8dt869tabe94bncv4bt08o@4ax.com...
>> It seems to me that some people don't understand why others start a
>> business. They do it to make money!!! It's not to provide jobs, a
>> service and/or a product. It order to make money, it's most likely
>> that they will provide jobs, a service and/or a product. It's the
>> obligation of a corporation to it's shareholders to maximize profits.
>> To do that, they need to optimize both the selling price and cost of
>> doing business. When they fail to make profits, the corporation dies.
>> The scene is littered with corporations who have failed to do so.
>> Whatever happened to Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Osborne Computers,
>> Commodore Computers, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Montgomery
>> Ward, Woolworth's, the big steel companies in the rust belt, etc.
>> They failed to make profits for the shareholders. It looks like
>> Microsoft is succeeding. They must be doing something right. They
>> started very small. IBM was king when Gates started MS. He was like
>> a gnat on the rear of an elephant to IBM. They need to keep looking
>> over their should to see if there is another Bill Gates on the
>> horizon. I use MS products because I like them and I choose to do
>> so. I remember when the joy of computing was to watch the lights
>> flicker on the front panel - there was no OS, only the predecessor to
>> today's BIOS. I guess some of you would like to see MS fail. If they
>> did, I would suggest that the cost of software would increase, not
>> decrease.
>>
> Bill:
>
> I am very Capitalist. I do not want to see them fail. A part and parcel
> of Capitalism is when you sell someone a product, nothing should be hidden
> from
> them. You never sell your customer products you know have defects unless
> you let them know what those defects or limitations are.

So you would be happy if every copy of Windows had the buglist on the
outside of the box? How about bugs that were not identified at the time
that the product shipped? How about bugs that were introduced while fixing
other bugs (if you say "it shouldn't happen" then you'll wait the rest of
your life for a bug fix because if that could be guaranteed then there
would be no bugs to begin with)

> If you made
> errors in the product you should refund the purchase price or at least a
> depreciated purchase price, or let people it is "as is". (Up front and in
> BIG LETTERS.)

So if they called it "Windows As Is" you would be happy?

> Business, in order to work, has to adhere to laws and
> ethics. I do not believe that Microsoft adheres to the law, or ethical
> practice in
> this case.

What law or standard of practice requires that software be proven to be bug
free at release? And how do you go about determining that it is bug free?

Please identify a software vendor who has provided bug-free code of any
complexity.

> Laws and ethics are the structure business, good business, is
> built upon. I just don't see Microsoft doing that. In fact in all of
> this
> I hope that they reform and get down to making good deals. (A good deal
> is where the Customer is satisfied and the Business is satisfied after the
> transaction. I don't see that normally with Microsoft's operating
> systems.)

So most of Microsoft's customers are not satisfied with the OS? Is that
what you are claiming? Statistics please.

> Those businesses that fail to adhere to this good deal will go
> out of
> business unless they have a monopoly on something. (Microsoft so far has
> come very close to that, but not yet.)
>
> Just as a comparison, look at another company. One in a business everyone
> currently hates. A drug company. Remember Johnson & Johnson during the
> Tylenol poisoning fiasco? The ethics of that company by recalling their
> product and replacing the packaging with tamper resistant packaging is an
> example of ethical business practices. (Heck, the issue was not even
> their
> fault, and they did it.) That is a company with ethics and one that I
> will buy product from and even give them more slack when other issues
> arise, because I know their ethical practices would not let them put out a
> defective product on purpose. There are many other examples.

So let's see, when Microsoft discovers that there is a bug in their
software, they should issue a recall, require that everyone send back their
disks, and send out new disks by snail mail? How is that "more ethical"
than having the OS automatically check for patches and install them if
found, which is how their system works by default now.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
<snip>

>> > This is simply history. As I
>> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
> a
>> > in
>> > house designed and developed code to date.
>>
>> So where was NT designed and developed?
> I
> BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS

Where did you ever get _that_ idea? The guy who developed NT was hired from
DEC where he developed VMS. No DEC guy is _about_ to base his OS on
anything from IBM.


<snip>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >> So where was NT designed and developed?
> > I
> > BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>
> Where did you ever get _that_ idea? The guy who developed NT was hired from
> DEC where he developed VMS. No DEC guy is _about_ to base his OS on
> anything from IBM.

Are you talking about Rick Rashid? I thought he was hired from CMU.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> >> So where was NT designed and developed?
>> > I
>> > BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>>
>> Where did you ever get _that_ idea? The guy who developed NT was hired
>> from
>> DEC where he developed VMS. No DEC guy is _about_ to base his OS on
>> anything from IBM.
>
> Are you talking about Rick Rashid? I thought he was hired from CMU.

No, David Cutler.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)