# Ooooo...lookie here...Isn't this just cute?



## chemistry_geek (Jul 10, 2002)

Bill Gates' Website!

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp

I can't believe this.  He looks sooooo comfortable.  I'd like to drop all those lightbulbs, one by one, on his head for stealing all those ideas from Apple.  He certainly looks like he's innovating.  But we all know how looks can be deceiving.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

Bill Gates is a very smart influential man that has done a lot for the technology industry.  He and his wife also have, and continue to do, a lot for humanity.

He is just 1 of hundreds of higher-ups at Microsoft that I don't think is necessarily to blame for every problem you have with MS or Windows, though he's not without fault.

If you don't think for 1 minutes Steve Jobs would trade places with Bill Gates, you're wrong.

Jobs wakes up every night in a cold sweat knowing despite starting the PC revolution, Gates due to superior intellect now controls it's evolution.

Jobs has been documented all his life as a terrible person, mean spirited and out of control.  I could only imagine the tyranny the computer industry might live under if he only had but half the power Gates has.

Talk about control freak, if Jobs had the market share to get away with it, you'd probably need to sign away your first born just to boot up a Mac.

I honestly don't know, but I could imagine a much worse world under the control of Steve Jobs.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 10, 2002)

Bill Gates appears "nice" because he has to - the Department of Justice would have broken up M$ into smaller pieces if it weren't for the current pro-business Bush administration.  I'm sure we've all heard it before where Billie boy says that breaking up M$ will hurt the consumer and the US economy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  And Bill's not donating all that money for the benefit of humanity.  His primary reason for donating is for the tax break/write-off and public relations (he doesn't want to appear TOO wealthy).  The benefit to humanity is secondary.  If he could keep it all for himself, believe me he would.  And if it weren't for the Justice Department Anti-Trust lawsuit, M$ products would be even more expensive and have stricter licensing agreements.  If ol' Billie boy has his way, you won't be running Linux on your PC in 3 to 5 years either.  He's trying to implement a digital rights management chip into future PCs, and Intel and AMD are going right along with it.  Any unauthorized operating system and software simply won't work with your future PC.  Doesn't that sound nice?  Sure gives the consumer CHOICE now doesn't it?  Run OUR $h!44y operating system or nothing at all.


----------



## Trip (Jul 10, 2002)

Consider Bill Gates to be todays Hitler:

He's a good talker, he tests his power of speech whenever he can. He has no real power or brains, but he can talk.

If you can convince a world of people to use a OS that cannot do half the things it's rival OS can do then you sir...have great speaking skills.

That's all.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.  FUD is what you spread and stuffer from.

I don't think MS should go unpunished for their monopolistic business practices but breaking them up could certainly have a negative effect on the economy.

Look at our economy right now.  the DJIA is below 9000 points.  Why do you think this is?  It's because companies like Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom decided to take a dump on us.  I could only imagine the effect of disrupting a financially sound corporation like Microsoft by splitting them up might have on our economy.  It could be potentially devistating.

The digital rights management chip is an attempt at stopping people from pirating software and music, not to lock out operating systems like Linux.  You crazies twist and turn everything into something it's not.  Just like Microsoft's product activation.  Before XP was released everybody freaked like it was the end of civilization as we know it.  As of right now, has it hurt anybody, no.  Why should you be able to buy one copy of XP or Office and install it on your 5 computers at home?  That's like saying it's ok to put 25c into the news paper stand and not take one but all the news papers.  The honor system obviously didn't work for MS, so now they are only trying to protect themselves.  

Get a grip on reality and stop spreading lies.  We are already starting to see a lot different of Microsoft due to the courts ruling against it.  The next service packs for 2000 and XP will allow IE and WMP to be removed from the OS to some extent.

It's wonderful though people like you continue to put pressure on MS.  It only encourages them to build a better OS.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Trip _
> *Consider Bill Gates to be todays Hitler:
> 
> He's a good talker, he tests his power of speech whenever he can. He has no real power or brains, but he can talk.
> ...



I'm sorry but this is just moronic.  Comparing Bill Gates to someone who exterminated 6 million Jews is disgusting.  You lack tact and understanding of the real world in general.  I understand you're just a child but please try and control yourself.  Statements such as this as this one are almost unforgiveable.


----------



## voice- (Jul 10, 2002)

MS is ALREADY a convicted criminal, I do not wish for them, if anyone, to decide what goes and what doesn't go on computers. They are known to break promises and do whatever it takes to sell a product. If they control the hardware, what would prevent them in 10 years from saying "As of now, you can ONLY run our systems and software"...they are convicted for doing JUST THAT.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Look at our economy right now.  the DJIA is below 9000 points.  Why do you think this is?  It's because companies like Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom decided to take a dump on us.  I could only imagine the effect of disrupting a financially sound corporation like Microsoft by splitting them up might have on our economy.  It could be potentially devistating. *



WRONG! The DJIA closed down at 8,813.50 because the GREEDY executive officers of the companies take their double-digit million dollar bonuses regardless of the welfare of the company and its current economic status.  To compensate for their GREED, they instruct the accounting departments to make false balance sheets and shift money around to make the companies look more profitable than they really are.  Pure and simple: the problem is GREED and corruption.  And the American stock holder, myself included, don't want to lose any more money than we already have.  So what do we do?  We sell our shares/stock of the corrupt companies, BIG companies, that make up the DJIA which in turn plummet the DJIA.  The money is then invested in less risky securities.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by voice- _
> *MS is ALREADY a convicted criminal, I do not wish for them, if anyone, to decide what goes and what doesn't go on computers. They are known to break promises and do whatever it takes to sell a product. If they control the hardware, what would prevent them in 10 years from saying "As of now, you can ONLY run our systems and software"...they are convicted for doing JUST THAT. *



No, you're wrong, let me correct you.  They were actually convicted of monopolistic business practicies stemming from IE being placed on the Windows desktop and it's inability to be removed.

They won't single handedly control the hardware.  Every software manufacturer will have a say in how their application is handled.  For instance, if you decided to pirate Photoshop and install it with a generated serial number, it will not run.  MS is only trying to help protect businesses such as Adobe that lose millions a year because bastards are too cheap to purchase their products. 

They aren't going to lock out Linux or other operating systems.  Are you crazy?  They have already been convicted of monopolistic practices and they are currently attempting to remedy this to some extent.  Of course I'm sure it so they don't get split up but hell, it's nice to see them give in for a change.

For them to do what everbody is suggesting with the digital rights management initiative would be suicide.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *
> 
> WRONG! The DJIA closed down at 8,813.50 because the GREEDY executive officers of the companies take their double-digit million dollar bonuses regardless of the welfare of the company and its current economic status.  To compensate for their GREED, they instruct the accounting departments to make false balance sheets and shift money around to make the companies look more profitable than they really are.  Pure and simple: the problem is GREED and corruption.  And the American stock holder, myself included, don't want to lose any more money than we already have.  So what do we do?  We sell our shares/stock of the corrupt companies, BIG companies, that make up the DJIA which in turn plummet the DJIA.  The money is then invested in less risky securities. *



That's esentially what I said but thanks for clarifying.  My point which you missed though was that as these corporations crumble while driving our economy down, how smart of an idea would it be to shake-up Microsoft in the midst of these tragedies.

But while we're on the subject, sure, split them up, why not?  Then we'll have one incredibly powerful company dedicated to Windows and another dedicated to IE and another to Office.  Sounds genius.  Now instead of trying to take the tech market by one medium, the operating system, they can attack it from 3 different angles with even more power and fury than before.

Some people don't think things out very well.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *But while we're on the subject, sure, split them up, why not?  Then we'll have one incredibly powerful company dedicated to Windows and another dedicated to IE and another to Office.  Sounds genius.  Now instead of trying to take the tech market by one medium, the operating system, they can attack it from 3 different angles with even more power and fury than before.
> 
> Some people don't think things out very well. *



As part of the punishment, the company that makes Office must make Office not only for Windows, but Mac OS, Linux, UNIX, Solaris, IRIX, BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, etc, etc, etc...  Just imagine the man power required to make one product for every major operating system.  THEN THE FREE MARKET WILL DECIDE WHICH PRODUCTS TO USE.  If Office was available for Linux and other UNIXs, Windows would crumble under the weight of all its bugs and security holes.  The number of programmers employed to make this happen would spark the tech sector again.  How would all these people be paid?  From the split up, most of the money of M$, as part of its punishment, would go to the company making Office software.  That way the Office company has a fair chance of succeeding and staying viable.  The split up of M$ would create more jobs.  Why do you think companies MERGE nad then terminate people?  To reduce redundancy of functions and make more money.  Doing the reverse as part of an antitrust settlement will create more jobs in a troubled economy and getting the cash flowing again.  M$ has the cash reserves for this kind of breakup, they just don't want to you to know about it.

Some people never think things out very well.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *
> 
> As part of the punishment, the company that makes Office must make Office not only for Windows, but Mac OS, Linux, UNIX, Solaris, IRIX, BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, etc, etc, etc...  Just imagine the man power required to make one product for every major operating system.  THEN THE FREE MARKET WILL DECIDE WHICH PRODUCTS TO USE.  If Office was available for Linux and other UNIXs, Windows would crumble under the weight of all its bugs and security holes.  The number of programmers employed to make this happen would spark the tech sector again.  How would all these people be paid?  From the split up, most of the money of M$, as part of its punishment, would go to the company making Office software.  That way the Office company has a fair chance of succeeding and staying viable.  The split up of M$ would create more jobs.  Why do you think companies MERGE nad then terminate people?  To reduce redundancy of functions and make more money.  Doing the reverse as part of an antitrust settlement will create more jobs in a troubled economy and getting the cash flowing again.  M$ has the cash reserves for this kind of breakup, they just don't want to you to know about it.
> ...



That's genius as well.  Now do they not only have control of the PC Windows market with Office, but Linux, Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX, FreeBSD and God knows what other operating systems and platforms as well.  I guess this goes for IE as well?  Fantastic!  How companies such as StarOffice or OpenOffice.org are to surive when a far superior alternative will be unleashed on their platforms is a mystery to me.

Your thinking baffles me.  If splitting up MS would create more jobs, why is this a good thing?  MS is not struggling during the economic down turn like other companies.  Truthfully it has hardly effected them.  Now if they were to have 3 companies instead of one, growning at an exponetial rate, given their history of dominating every market they produce a product for, again, how is this a good thing?  You should read up on your history of mergers.  Namely AOL/Timer Warner.  Thus far, it has been devistating for both companies.  Check it out in the URL below.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020425-22380712.htm

Why do you think HP and Compaq faught so hard to not merge?  I'm a Business Major, don't try to bullsh*t me.

Anyway, now you have 3 companies with 3 products attacking 3 markets at full force with the strength and money of Microsoft behind them.  You better pray to whatever God you believe in because if this happens, you're essentially fu*ked.

You're right, some people never think things out very well.


----------



## voice- (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> No, you're wrong, let me correct you.  They were actually convicted of monopolistic business practicies stemming from IE being placed on the Windows desktop and it's inability to be removed.
> ...



One part of the monopolist charges were that they used their power over the OS to deliberately made competing apps unstable to make their own software look more attractive. If they were in charge of the hardware(which is the basic thought in the Palladium project) they, not only could, but _would_ do the same there.

If we give MS the power and control over hardware they basically own the computers and we're just granted usage of them, once all computers use this system there's no turning back. One MS smartass will think that it's time Linux was outlawed, as well as any other MS-competing computer, and if the world was THEN to say stop and go back to the old stuff, it would TRUELY be what MS claims will happen now, it'd put the technology back 10 years and somewhat lock it there.

IF we really NEED the Palladium project then I'd like for someone else than MS to be in charge, and not just one company.


----------



## xoot (Jul 10, 2002)

Lots of anti-M$ threads are popping up here, like the lightbulbs.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by voice- _
> *
> 
> One part of the monopolist charges were that they used their power over the OS to deliberately made competing apps unstable to make their own software look more attractive. If they were in charge of the hardware(which is the basic thought in the Palladium project) they, not only could, but would do the same there.
> ...



I don't believe they were convicted of deliberately making competing apps unstable on their OS because since their OS is closed sourced and they would not open it, it could never be determined.  Not opening the source of their OS is not an omission of guilt either.

The Australian Government actually has access to the Windows source code.  Should we declair war on them as well?  Obviously it's a master plan to take over the world, one continent at a time!

They've already been convicted of monopolistic practices.  They couldn't afford to lock out Linux or any other OS from PC hardware and risk being tried again.  Use some common sense for half a second and think about it.

Sure, let someone else handle it but who has control of the market right now?  Microsoft.  What OS do most companies produce their apps to run on?  Windows.  Until that changes, there's little choice left.

In all honesty, the likelyhood of this project becoming a reality is slim to none.  Anytime you suggest a ground breaking, earth shattering, potentially devistating initiative, atleast in the eyes of people like you, you always shoot for the stars.  Then you sit back, relax and hope atleast 1 of the 10 million cards falls in your favor.


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xoot _
> *Lots of anti-M$ threads are popping up here, like the lightbulbs.  *



Of course there are, this is a Apple Computer forum.  

Unlike 90% of the users here that haven't used any other OS than Mac OS, I've used Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, IRIX, Solaris, BeOS, NeXTStep, Mac OS X, and BSDi extensively and many others not so extensively.

The difference is I have somewhat of an open mind and experience about what I'm talking about unlike many others and I'm not going to sit here and bash Microsoft, Apple, Linux, AOL or whoever else no other reason than "what I've read or heard."

I could create crackpot threads about anything, but what's the point?  In my opinion you only dull your senses by feeding into this sort of slanderous bullsh*t.

I defend what I believe is right and of course it's a struggle being so out numbered.  If you're going to sit there and make up sh*t, skew the facts, and spread and create FUD in others, you're no better than the people you're trying to slander.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *In all honesty, the likelyhood of this project becoming a reality is slim to none.  Anytime you suggest a ground breaking, earth shattering, potentially devistating initiative, atleast in the eyes of people like you, you always shoot for the stars.  Then you sit back, relax and hope atleast 1 of the 10 million cards falls in your favor. *



What the hell do you think the Xbox is?  It is a modified PC board with digital rights managment hardware built into it.  Did you know that the system bus inside XBox transfers information ENCRYPTED?  There's currently a $200,000 reward for the first person who can bybass the XBox bios and DRM chip to run Linux.  Currently, Linux does not run on the XBox for this reason.  The Palladium PC already exists!  Infact, I'll bet the XBox is a test device to see just how well the technology works.  Do you read Slashdot?  If you don't, you should, and here's the link: http://www.slashdot.org/


----------



## azosx (Jul 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *
> 
> What the hell do you think the Xbox is?  It is a modified PC board with digital rights managment hardware built into it.  Did you know that the system bus inside XBox transfers information ENCRYPTED?  There's currently a $200,000 reward for the first person who can bybass the XBox bios and DRM chip to run Linux.  Currently, Linux does not run on the XBox for this reason.  The Palladium PC already exists!  Infact, I'll bet the XBox is a test device to see just how well the technology works.  Do you read Slashdot?  If you don't, you should, and here's the link: http://www.slashdot.org/ *



This is completely off topic but ok, what's your point?  If the XBox were allowed to run PC games or other operating systems, it really wouldn't be worth much to MS now would it?  Sony and Microsoft don't make much money on the systems they sell, it's the games that run on those systems that make them profitable.

Why should Linux be allowed to run on the XBox, that's not what it was designed for.  Linux can't run on my GameCube either, should we all blame Nintendo for this?  Linux can't run on my VCR, microwave, car or blender either.  Should the companies that make these devices be held accountable for such an atrocity?  No.  Why?  Because Linux isn't supposed to be able to run on any of those things, just like it's not supposed to be able to run on the XBox.

$200,000 will just about cover 1 day of legal fees after MS squats that poor hackers a*s after he collects.

Your argument is shifting so fast and furiously it's becoming difficult to keep up.


----------



## btoneill (Jul 10, 2002)

Why anyone would want to run linux on anything is beyond me. Waste of perfectly good CPU cycles. 

Brian


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Your argument is shifting so fast and furiously it's becoming difficult to keep up. *



 Get educated before responding to posts.


----------



## azosx (Jul 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *
> 
> Get educated before responding to posts. *




Great argument.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## twyg (Jul 11, 2002)

Oh c'mon azosx...

You rankled these folks up and now they're showing you examples of microsofts arrogance. How is that difficult to keep up on?

Btw, what chemistry geek means is educate yourself on exactly what the argument is. For example, read up on the console wars. 

I laugh in Microsoft's face HARD when it comes to Xbox. Too bad college doesn't teach what the real world does. Experience. 

In class it makes perfect sense to look at sony, and nintendo and all the others and say "See, look at that, the games are what make the money." Simply changing widgets for games and gadgets for consoles doesn't work in the real word. Works awesome in calculations, but horrible outside. Why you ask? Because the world doesn't really trust Microsoft. It's all they know. 

Shove something down someones throat enough, and they're bound to not know anything else. 

That is what you guys in business school call marketing. You could market ice to Eskimos. How friggin' useless is that? But if you're good at marketing, (and a whole bunch of other concepts) it doesn't matter if what your selling is completely useless, and poor. 

Keep 'em wanting. That's what Bill knows, it's just he looses quality in favor of "newness."

No one really likes Windows. No one really likes computers actually. When you get out in the real world you'll meet people who literally get sweaty palms when they sit in front of a computer. "Oh, oh, I don't want to touch it... I'll break it." Now take them and ask them what operating system is out there. "Microsoft something." 

My point is this. Microsoft does have a genius behind it, but he suffers from it as well. His calculations are brilliant, his marketing even better. "Keep givin' them something better, something new, we'll fix those other problems later..." Think that's a fib? Meet the two software engineers and accountant I know who are ex-Microsoft employees. The accountant told me that more money was spent outsourcing poor code repair than any other technology company she's ever worked for. The software engineers were both "appalled" and "couldn't take much more, so I left." What were they appalled about? What couldn't they take much more of? Simple. Microsoft at that time (1996-1997) were sending out their products one third tested. It was all about getting the customer something new, something great. 

So I ask you this, if they're so great, and their products is so wonderful, why, why must they continue to go forward so fast even though they don't fix the mess they make?

That's the core of my MS complaint. Great, they're big and wonderful. Terrific Bill Gates is a genius. But I don't like that they give the consumers "fluff." I can't tell you how much extra crud is in something like Microsoft IE that I never use. Who here uses Auction Manager? Who here uses PageKeeper. Where is the one person who uses Scrapbook? This is the most efficent program I've seen to date on the Mac side from Microsoft. 

So what chemistry_geek was saying is, get out there. Get out from behind your teachers and your books. Remember what they've taught you! But... The real business world works different. 

Oh, and the dotcoms are really what made us crash. Not a personal jab here, but 90% of them were led by business school grads who hadn't a lick of experience... That's again, not a jab, just the facts. It seems that Bill is hiring too many unexperienced folks. Getting into Apple on the other hand is like using the internet in China. Damn near impossible. 

Most of that was a rant, so thanks for bearing w/ me.


----------



## evildan (Jul 11, 2002)

azosx,

You're obviously going to see a lot of flame in posting a "pro-microsoft" side on these boards.

I would like to consider myself open minded enough to see your point... which I think is, MS is just as bad as Apple... so don't bash one without knowing the other is just as bad.

Which is true, to some extent.

The original post in this thread was kind of taking a shot at Bill Gates and you stepped in and defended him and bashed Steve Jobs.

So to be fair you are kind of guilty of doing exactly what your complaining about. But please don't miss understand my post, I have no intension of pointing out your mistakes anymore then I would like you to point out mine.

Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have been known for their tempers. The one thing Bill Gates has is a greater success in business (no one can deny this, he's one of the richest men in the world). But one thing Bill cannot buy is style... he just seems to be in need of an image make-over. (perhaps he could go on one of those day-time TV shows). Not that I don't want him to have style, but common... look at the picture of him on that couch as an example...

It looks like he's going to fall off... he doesn't look like he is enjoying or relaxing himself at all.

Of course I am an avid Apple lover, and while that's the case, I cannot say that Apple is not without it's faults.

In fact, it's my responsibility to point out those faults and demand that Apple recognize the consumer's vote. Or else what is to stop Apple from becoming another Microsoft.

Steve is a bit of a tyrant, isn't he? I think so. But the average consumer probably thinks he is running the show pulling all the strings, and maybe building a few Macs on his lunch hour.. and this is not the case. 

Apple and MS could do just fine without Steve or Bill... but they would see major marketing points lost with their departures.

Apple people want a visionary to associate with their computer company, someone who will break a few standards, create a little revolution, etc... and Steve is a one man show when it comes to that.

Microsoft people want a no nonsense technical thinker to represent their software company. Conformity, and the knowledge that their running the same thing as everybody else is very important to them. Bill Gates has packaged a very marketable product, because it is everywhere and everyone has it. 

While Apple was worrying about pleasing customers, MS was worrying about computer manufactures carrying their product.

But with all that said and done... In my opinion, Apple just makes a better OS... I'm sorry, I've been on just about every OS I can get my hands on, and none of them even come close.

There was an inventor (no one famous) who was on the Discovery Channel (or TLC), and he was talking about the philosophy of development.

He said the company he runs has a goal to improve the everyday products that consumers use.

He spoke of a toothpaste tube cap that his company designed. He said,Here's a product that is far more superior then the current caps we use in our homes.

Our cap pops off, but remains with the tube, it also prevents the toothpaste from spilling out of the tube while the tube is being opened.

But during test results, people took a full second longer to open the cap because everybody knows you twist off the cap from a tube of toothpaste, you dont pop it off. So the product failed in test results as being an easier cap to open. 

He went on to say... it's moments like this when you have to look at the possibility that some things cannot be re-invented... despite how good they may be. Because you can't just grit your teeth and say "stupid customer!"

I think we can learn this point when it comes to OS's... I think Apple has a better OS, but I don't expect it to be #1 anytime soon. Consumers go with what they know... and everyone knows windows because they positioned themselves very well.

Look at Mac Osx a great operating system... I feel its much better then XP, having had the experience to use both, but where are my my osx commercials? I cant get that Madonna song out of my head from the MS commercials, but wheres Apples catchy toon? They dont have one... Conclusion, Apple wants to be #2 in marketing... But #1 in quality. 

Just because the majority of people use something doesnt make it the best. Or the people who promote it better. (Lest we forget the Packard Bell computer  which was the #1 selling computer).

But it is important to remember that no company is perfect, Apple or Microsoft, and any claim of such is nonsense.

Go with what you know and what you like... And hey did you guys see that picture of Bill Gates looking silly? Yeah I did too... He looks silly doesnt he? I think so... silly silly silly Bill Gates.


----------



## azosx (Jul 11, 2002)

I understand what you're saying but my point wasn't to flame Steve Jobs.  It was to show that you can find the same flaws in anyone, be it Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or yourself.

My problem with anti-anything threads is that they are counter productive, mind numbing, and if you think you've learned something from them, chances are it was false.

I would defend Apple or anyone else the same way if someone were to place a silly picture of Steve Jobs in a thread and comment on how smug and unintelligent he is for no other reason than to be a troll.

The last of the dotcoms died out about a year ago, slowing down our economy and put us in a recession for one quarter.  They continue to die but none with any great amount of captial.  A quarter later the recession was over but unfortunately, 9/11, Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing continue to drag our stock market down thus impacting our economy.  All those silly dotcoms really never got big enough to have a lasting impact, that's why the recession was so short.  Intel and other tech companies didn't help by releasing a new processor or product every three days either. 

I don't know what I was missing about the console wars.  Console are produced at a loss so that the games can hopefully recoupe the expenses and generate profit.  Sony and MS follow this business model for sure while Nintendo tends not to lose money on their consoles to such an extent.  Sony is winning the big console war, Nintendo has claimed the portable and the XBox is kind of lost at the moment.

It's absurd to blame MS for not wanting to XBox to run Linux.  Nintendo wouldn't allow it either.  They chose PC hardware to build their console because that's what they knew and to get a jump on the decade advantage Sony and Nintendo had.

I consider myself well versed in computer technology, history and the arts so pretty much my heads full of useless crap.

My father has been the President of a corporation he founded for the last 40 years.  I speak from that experience, not from what I've read in countless textbooks.

I like Microsoft and I like Apple and I have an especially soft spot in my heart for General Motors.   Seriously though, I think they all make great products in their own right.  Microsoft flubs up here and there but they also have a much bigger piece of the pie to take care of.  Apple flubbed up a better part of the 90's but what's the point in blaming them now?

I seriously believe Apple has never taught there user base to communicate with anybody but themselves.  Everything has become so Mac-centric and close minded.  I seriously attribute their 3% market share to Mac users inability to be open minded and forgiving of someone or something other than Steve Jobs and Apple.  It's hard being the underdog, trust me, I know, and maybe when Apple gains some market share, their users will get a better taste of what it's like to be incorporated into a bigger picture, with Windows users and all.

I enjoy the Apple website discussion forums and was made a "Helper" there.  Anti-MS, AOL or anything is not tolerated and for good reason.  It's not professional and to be taken seriously and grow and a website devoted to Mac or any platform, you can't have it.

If you look at all the threads on this website, how many are anti-something and only for the sake of slander?  Imagine if this wasted energy was used for something productive like learning more about OS X, Darwin, the economy or anything.  The same can be said for MS and Linux users as well.  

I like this site but I think MS troll threads only farm FUD and distance users even more from learning about Macs and computer technology in general.

Anyway, I appriciate your insight and certainly meant no harm or disrespect to chem geek or anyone else.  When these discussions get heated I take small jabs.  Most do it in one way or another, mine are just more apparent.  If you knew me better you'd know I don't mean anything by them.  Ed's had a field day with my use of the word bullsh*t.  I will watch that in the future as well.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 12, 2002)

Slashdot has a new article here about Palladium (M$ DRM built into a PC):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/12/1310253&mode=thread&tid=109


----------



## azosx (Jul 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *Slashdot has a new article here about Palladium (M$ DRM built into a PC):
> 
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/12/1310253&mode=thread&tid=109 *



I hope you don't believe everything you read in the "news."  Slashdot is hardly a reputable news site either.  It suffers from the same bias towards Microsoft this site does.

Until this technology is actually released, how can one actually pass judgement on it?

Apple itself tried it's damnednest for years not to allow Linux to run on Mac hardware.  Are they now the enemy as well?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 12, 2002)

The bias against M$ is justified.  M$ is greedy, crooked, controling and manipulative.  I can't say the same thing about Apple.  There are plenty of corporate M$ emails and documents circulating around the internet to substantiate this.  Even the DOJ found evidence of this in emails subpoenaed from M$.

Apple didn't try to prevent Linux from running on their computers, they just didn't cooperate with the Linux developers.  Apple has only recently returned to proitability.  When Linux developers were porting Linux to the Mac, Apple was bleeding badly from every oriface, self-inflicted wound, and numerous battle wounds.  People have no idea how close Apple came to going under.  It's interesting how they migrated toward a UNIX-type OS anyway.  Apple simply didn't have the resources to assist in developing Linux on the Mac.  It happened anyway, I have Linux PPC 2000.  It works great - fast and stable.

And to correct you, Slashdot is a pretty reputable news source.  They don't post rumors or hearsay.  The articles posted there have merit and accuracy, even references, it's just the user base that is biased, and rightly so.  The Feds have convicted and upheld that M$ is monopolistic, even to this day.  I invite you to find a non-credible article on Slashdot.


----------



## xoot (Jul 12, 2002)

Can you send an e-mail to Bill Gates and ask him to take this test?

 Anyone who has a close relationship with him anyway.


----------



## azosx (Jul 12, 2002)

Here you go.  I had to go all the way back two days ago to find one but here it is.

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/07/10/0017206.shtml?tid=181 

Yes, everything they are "guessing" may actually happen but that certainly doesn't substantiate it, especially coming from a non-credited rumors site.  50% of Slashdot is unsubstantiated hearsay.  And it's gotten 700% worse since 1996.  

I'm not going to argue with you.  You're right, everything pubished is the truth.  At least everything published about Microsoft is.  

Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly.  Just like AT&T, AOL/Time Warner and many other companies you might enjoy on a daily basis.  

So what?  They've been convicted and just like every other monpoly convicted in the US, they'll get their come-up ins soon enough.

Apple tried to save it's ass because Linux threated to wipe them out.  How is that any different than what Microsoft is trying to do?  They control the market but it only takes one wrong move to bring their empire crashing down.  It's human nature to protect yourself at all cost.

I'm not saying that's what Pallidium is for, but Microsoft has every right to protect themselves legally by other means.  Until I get a Pallidium enabled PC and unable to install Linux on it, then will your claims be substantiated, but not until then.  

Business is not fair.  Nobody gets to the top by "playing nice."  Motorola could have been considered a monopoly at one time as well when they were on top of the world but one  wrong move brought them crashing down.

Apple's no different.  The "stole" the GUI from the Xerox PARC.  Yes, they paid in stock to have another peak at it but Xerox said they never expected them to steal their ideas right out and computer engineers as well.  Apple got into the market this way and was on top for nearly a decade.  Cut throat tactics, no different that anybody else.

Jobs went after both Apple and the PC with NeXT.  He failed but his mission was to destroy them.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's the American way.  It's called Capitalism.

Yes, I hope they strike down on Microsoft hard and do whatever is needed to insure they don't act illegally again but realize, that's big business, and don't think for one second Apple, GM, Pepsi Cola or Sony have not all acted illegally at one point.  They've just yet to be caught.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 13, 2002)

MSNBC ran an article either yesterday or the day before stating that the iMac G4 will have a 17 inch flat screen.  I also read about this from some Wallstreet analyst that tracks computer technology.  It sort of let the secret out when it said Apple was purchasing 17 inch flat panel LCD displays.  Everyone "knew" it was very likely to go into a revised iMac G4.  The iMac G4 should have been introduced with 17 inch flat panel display from the beginning.


----------



## azosx (Jul 13, 2002)

15" is still the norm for flat panel displays while 19" is becoming the norm for CRTs.

17" iMacs would be sweet as long as they can keep the price down.  Their 17" Studio Display is $1000.  Hopefully this outrageous cost doesn't go into the new iMacs.

I wish they would get some DDR memory and faster system bus in their desktops.

They really need to can Motorola and go with someone else for processors.  AMD x86 wouldn't be bad if they could incorporate Pallidium like technology into the motherboards so only OS X could run on their hardware.  Their 64-bit chips are going to rock Intel come 2003. 

When and if the G5 ever sees the light of day, it really isn't going to be that state of the art next to AMD and Intel's offerings.

I'm wondering if it's actually going to sink Apple.  I actually think it's been ready for some time.  The problem is the production yield is crap and the cost is through the roof.  Apple would never cut into their profit margins so either they'll wait or just release the G5 at $700 a chip.

I know the iMac is killing their PowerMac line because there is little difference anymore between the two other than L3 cache and SMP.

I'm guessing that's why they raised the iMacs price despite claims of manufaturing costs rising.  The decline in PowerMac sells must have been sharp and they had to recoupe profits some how.


----------



## edX (Jul 13, 2002)

> _ said by azosx_
> Yes, I hope they strike down on Microsoft hard and do whatever is needed to insure they don't act illegally again but realize, that's big business, and don't think for one second Apple, GM, Pepsi Cola or Sony have not all acted illegally at one point. They've just yet to be caught.



this statement bothers me in some ways. 

it bothers me that you make it sound like this is the way it is so we should just accept it. That only businesses that cheat, succede. and we if we don't like that, too bad. Frankly i don't believe that at all. I do believe that a lot of big businesses do things that they shouldn't - things that really aren't in anyone's best interest but their own. But i also believe we can do something about it once we are aware of it and that we should. I also believe that companies that sell inferior products or harm the consumers should fail in the market place and not be able to strangelhold their positions - *that is capitolism*.  

i add the following quote from the mozilla thread to support the above interpretaion of your latest "that's big business"


> It is scary the amount of control Big Business has on the way we live and the government we
> stand by. Unfortunately that's pretty much how capitalism works in the United States, if you don't like it, move.
> In the 20's it was Standard Oil. In the 80's AT&T. Today it's AOL and MS. I don't have a solution to this problem, but
> again, I believe it's way off topic as well.



well, i have a partial answer - consumers should all have a little "FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt ", because without it, they are gleefully participating in the crimes of these companies. You continue to use that concept as something evil and ignorant, whereas i see it as the first step to awareness. and just to be sure you know, i think we should all have a little of it for our beloved apple as well. no one should be immune unless they can prove their innocence to us. and those examples you gave of monopolies in the past - they were all broken and we have all been better off for it. not that some of the offspring haven't committed crimes of their own, but their powers are not near as encompassing as the original monopolies. and the economy has rebounded from it every time. let m$ go the way of the other criminals. any claims that it will do more harm than good are just a bully whimpering when he finally gets cornered by his victims.


oh and i forgot to respond to one of your comments in the other thread - 


> "Fear And Loathing On The Merger Trail." Ironically, I think that title sums you up quite nicely.


i meant to say thanks.


----------



## azosx (Jul 13, 2002)

I never suggest that we all go along with it.  I just pointed out that it exists in everything, not just Microsoft.

To me, your amount of FUD boarders on paranoia, yet seems to turn a cheek to Apple all together.  Your whole Mozilla argument was like 6 degrees seperation.  Apple can be tied just as closely to Microsoft as Mozilla is to AOL.  Any business can be tied to an evil entity.

For your argument to hold any merit with me, you'd pratically have to live in a cave and eat off the land to not support monopolies such as MS and AOL.  That which you don't do.  Yes, that is extreme but if you were truly concerned with the monoplistic enfluences MS has on others, you'd run Linux over OS 9 or X.

You pick and choose, and to me that's not fair.  You don't practice what you preach on all accounts.  I should not only hate Microsoft but Apple as well because at one point in time they sold out to MS and let IE and Office kill Netscape and AppleWorks.

I'm not going to hurt myself, my business and the people I love just because Microsoft did a bad thing.  I need my PC.  I do in Windows what I can't do in OS X or Linux.  

Until that changes I'm stuck and I'm certainly not going to take food out of my family's mouth just to be a martyr.

This isn't the case for everyone but it certainly reflects many people's struggle.

Until you show me that you honestly live without the influence of Microsoft or any other potential monopoly,  this would mean dropping Apple, I'm not going to buy into a word you say concerning this issue.


----------



## edX (Jul 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> I never suggest that we all go along with it.  I just pointed out that it exists in everything, not just Microsoft.


let me repeat your quote -


> It is scary the amount of control Big Business has on the way we live and the government we
> stand by. Unfortunately that's pretty much how capitalism works in the United States, if you don't like it, move.



is it just me, or are you not saying that my recourse for not liking criminal business practices, abuse of economic power, and Big Brother tactics is to move? which would imply that if i continue to live here, i should just accept it.  this is just the long version of 


> that's big business



next-


> Apple can be tied just as closely to Microsoft as Mozilla is to AOL.  Any business can be tied to an evil entity.



frankly m$'s relationship with apple is one of the great disappointments to me. the same with their relationship with ibm. but these were/are survival relationships forced upon apple by people who naively buy into the pc myths of compatibility and these companies domination of a market apple needed to be a part of. To this day i am advocate of apple cutting those ties as thouroughly as possible. but like me (my bank and credit cards insist i use ie), this can only be done to a certain extent in the current political climate. No one is a saint. me included. we all do things out of necessity that we would rather not do.



> For your argument to hold any merit with me, you'd pratically have to live in a cave and eat off the land to not support monopolies such as MS and AOL.  That which you don't do.  Yes, that is extreme but if you were truly concerned with the monoplistic enfluences MS has on others, you'd run Linux over OS 9 or X.


i've said this before but i'll repeat it - i agree. i cannot afford the luxury of closing myself off from the world as tempting as that sounds at times. but that would hardly solve the problems. it would only leave me living in a world in which injustices could occur without my input. and then how long before the power of money chooses to force me out of my cave and takes my land? that doesn't really take the merit out of my desire to change what i see as wrong.



> You pick and choose, and to me that's not fair.  You don't practice what you preach on all accounts.  I should not only hate Microsoft but Apple as well because at one point in time they sold out to MS and let IE and Office kill Netscape and AppleWorks.



yes, i was taught long ago to pick my battles because you just can't win them all. fair or not, that's the best i can do at this point in my life. it beats not fighting any battles at all. 



> I'm not going to hurt myself, my business and the people I love just because Microsoft did a bad thing.  I need my PC.  I do in Windows what I can't do in OS X or Linux.
> 
> Until that changes I'm stuck and I'm certainly not going to take food out of my family's mouth just to be a martyr.
> 
> This isn't the case for everyone but it certainly reflects many people's struggle.


i agree up to a point. but i would love to hear your list of the important money making things you can do in windows that you can't do on a mac. There have plenty of threads about this subject and nobody has ever put together a long list of these.  But you're right about being stuck in a situation that is pretty lousy because you and others are forced to participate in m$'s domination because they have convinced the average joe that he can't live without them.


> Until you show me that you honestly live without the influence of Microsoft or any other potential monopoly,  this would mean dropping Apple, I'm not going to buy into a word you say concerning this issue.


i'm not really concerned it you "buy into a word" i say or not. but you might be wise not to throw the baby out with the bathwater if you would like to see a better world, rather than just shrug and say "that's the way it is."  perhaps you will learn with time how important picking your causes and battles can be. and know where to fight them. maybe even how. 

the minute you start believing that you can't do anything about things because you are just one person, is the day you don't do anything about things at all. When lots of individuals start voicing a unified position, they can have an effect. The world has been changed for the better many times when this has happened. Most recently and vividly in my mind was the ending of apartheid, partially thru economic boycott of S. African companies. 

but maybe i'm wrong - maybe you think that a company should be able to destroy the rainforest or old growth redwoods just because they have the money and power to do it. maybe they should be able to dictate to us what information we can have and how we can obtain it. after all, that's how capitolism works, right? 

and just in case you missed my saying this a half dozen other times in the past, let me repeat it as well - i am not one of those who wants to see apple switch places with m$. I don't want to see apple acheive more than 20% of the market share. i want to stay a minority platform. i do not worry about apple attracting more customers or how they appear in the eyes of joe blow. i would prefer that the majority of people not know what they are missing. apple is currently able to offer a great product and provide for the userbase they have. as long as they are simply successful enough to do that, i'm happy. Happy enough to have paid a bit more and get a mac. i will continue to pay the price for the benefits it brings me so long as it is the best of all evils. (place tongue against inner wall of mouth)


----------



## azosx (Jul 13, 2002)

> let me repeat your quote -
> It is scary the amount of control Big Business has on the way we live and the government we
> stand by. Unfortunately that's pretty much how capitalism works in the United States, if you don't like it, move.



I still make no suggestion of giving into the criminal behavior of big business.  There comes a point where you have to take the bad with the good.  There is evil in everything.

I respect your efforts to try an not feed the evil, but as long as the US remains a democracy driven by capitialism, control by big business will always exist.

Many like yourself have made a conscious decision not to support big business the best you can.  I made the same decision as well long ago.  It's the reason I run Linux and support organizations like Mozilla as often as I can.  I'm just not quite the extremest you are, and I feel I can understand and seperate certain business relationships, like AOL/Netscape/Mozilla more fairly than you do.

Apple's goal is to not control 20% of the market, it's to control 100%.  That's any businesses goal.  It probably wont happen but if they were to gain 30, 40 or even 50% market share, they could easily find themselves in Microsoft's position so I do understand why you'd want them to remain small.

I'm writting this right now in the middle of 400 year old sequoias, so no, I don't think big business should destroy the rain forest or any other forest, but until our country moves to a communist or fascist dictatorship, there is nothing we'll be able to do about it.  I'm not saying we should accept it but there so much more to life than worrying about big business.

We live in the greatest country in the world and are afforded more freedoms than anyone else.  The kind of control you suggest would not only come at the expense of big business, but to us as well.  Trust the invisible hand.  This is one of the few cases where what you can't see really wont hurt you.


----------



## machagintosh (Jul 14, 2002)

I can imagine a Jim Reeves soundtrack as a backdrop to some of this  moralising.... 
Which one? I'm not sure, possibly one which has yet to be recorded.
So, I've been enlightened to the notions that Business can be self-seeking, corrupt & may provide shoddy products & service. Get REAL! 
I MUST get a new 17" flat panel to help me understand more of this, oh & then there's the solitaire! 
Please help me keep my Macs, they are such a comfort here is this rubber room so far removed from unreality.
It used to be so simple, there was Good Guy Steve, & Bad Guy Gates, now I'm told we have notsoBad guy Gates & notsogood guy Steve. A possible scenario for a Silicon Babble-on?
I have a spare white hat.........should it be red?


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *I don't believe they were convicted of deliberately making competing apps unstable on their OS because since their OS is closed sourced and they would not open it, it could never be determined.  Not opening the source of their OS is not an omission of guilt either.
> *



The only time that it has been PROVEN that Microsoft purposely made competing programs less stable is with Windows 3.1 running on Digital Research DOS. Microsoft was pushing MS-DOS so the superior DR-DOS was its biggest threat. I can understand why they did it, but that doesn't make it right.

Andre


----------



## Chibi15 (Jul 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Trip _
> *Consider Bill Gates to be todays Hitler:
> 
> He's a good talker, he tests his power of speech whenever he can. He has no real power or brains, but he can talk.
> ...



Actually i think that Bill Gates is not a good speaker...
Steve Jobs actually have to say nothing - just go to the sagte to get an applause like Bill Gates wouldn't get in 10 speeches


----------

