From: John Friesen
Subject: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <5b4m9u$5nr7@news.bctel.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208891252
references: <53qite$h8g@news.bellglobal.com> <55hme3$kd0@rex.sfe.com.au>
<328055c6.91870734@snoopy> <55k4me$io8@teal.csn.net>
<55qtsj$qcn@ferrari.geac.co.nz> <3293dec1.54739651@news.interlog.com>
<01bbdb68$dc635640$81a8edc2@pb> <57fua5$1m0@rubens.telebyte.nl>
<32A750A1.72F@fiu.edu> <32A90989.569AD5EA@double-barrel.be>
<32B06891.794BDF32@ics.uci.edu> <58sjeu$int@news.microsoft.com>
<59er42$cs2@orm.southern.co.nz> <32c1c5e3.24616918@news.sover.net>
<32c1e1c8.3710976@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32C5A5B2.634@nwlink.com>
<01bbf4f7$97f5fa00$25d894ce@default>
<joe.ragosta-ya023680003012961433080001@news.dca.net>
<01bbf688$6cde1720$3cd894ce@default> <jinx6568-0401971529080001@news.sover.net>
<elisha-ya023180000501971308180001@news.dot.net.au>
<5anfgv$9st@camel2.mindspring.com> <01bbfb2d$b482ed40$4c10eac2@default>
<5ap4hm$b67@camel1.mindspring.com> <01bbfc36$cdd766e0$9810eac2@default>
<32D1D6C0.663D@panix.com> <01bbfca1$a51e9640$d110eac2@default>
<32D5DF37.2145@ibm.net>
organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Microsoft earned over $3 billion last year.....with all of that money one
would think they would lead the world in software development (in quality,
not quantity)......but it seems as though Microsoft always ends up stealing
ideas from very small innovative, cash starved companies.
I forgot how shitty Windows 3.1 is until I had to help a friend
recently....Win95 is not much better. Two examples of crappy OSs, especially
considering the resources available for development.
....and there are still questions as to why so many people hate Microsoft?
From: "Demetrio Lamzaki" <Dee_Lamz...@msn.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <01bbff1d$15e3b680$LocalHost@default>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209037909
references: <53qite$h8g@news.bellglobal.com> <55hme3$kd0@rex.sfe.com.au>
<328055c6.91870734@snoopy> <55k4me$io8@teal.csn.net>
<55qtsj$qcn@ferrari.geac.co.nz> <3293dec1.54739651@news.interlog.com>
<01bbdb68$dc635640$81a8edc2@pb> <57fua5$1m0@rubens.telebyte.nl>
<32A750A1.72F@fiu.edu> <32A90989.569AD5EA@double-barrel.be>
<32B06891.794BDF32@ics.uci.edu> <58sjeu$int@news.microsoft.com>
<59er42$cs2@orm.southern.co.nz> <32c1c5e3.24616918@news.sover.net>
<32c1e1c8.3710976@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <32C5A5B2.634@nwlink.com>
<01bbf4f7$97f5fa00$25d894ce@default>
<joe.ragosta-ya023680003012961433080001@news.dca.net>
<01bbf688$6cde1720$3cd894ce@default> <jinx6568-0401971529080001@news.sover.net>
<elisha-ya023180000501971308180001@news.dot.net.au>
<5anfgv$9st@camel2.mindspring.com> <01bbfb2d$b482ed40$4c10eac2@default>
<5ap4hm$b67@camel1.mindspring.com> <01bbfc36$cdd766e0$9810eac2@default>
<32D1D6C0.663D@panix.com> <01bbfca1$a51e9640$d110eac2@default>
<32D5DF37.2145@ibm.net> <5b4m9u$5nr7@news.bctel.net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
John Friesen wrote in article <5b4m9u$5...@news.bctel.net>...
> Microsoft earned over $3 billion last year.....with all of that money
one
> would think they would lead the world in software development (in
quality,
> not quantity)......but it seems as though Microsoft always ends up
stealing
> ideas from very small innovative, cash starved companies.
>
> I forgot how shitty Windows 3.1 is until I had to help a friend
> recently....Win95 is not much better. Two examples of crappy OSs,
>especially considering the resources available for development.
If you think that Win95 is just as bad as Win3.1/DOS, you obviously
have no experience with Win95. Win95 is a darn good OS, with excellent
legacy support. Its only 'real' problem is the fact that it is actually
a 32 MB OS and not a 16 MB one, like Microsoft and the early press
implied. Once you get 32 megs, everything falls into place and Win95 is
fast, responsive, and an absolute pleasure to use.
> ....and there are still questions as to why so many people hate
Microsoft?
People are always resentful of success, unless it's their own; that's
part of human nature.
From: yuch...@math.arizona.edu (Yu-Wen Cheng)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/11
Message-ID: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209078415
organization: The University of Arizona
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
On 01/10/97, "Demetrio Lamzaki" wrote:
>If you think that Win95 is just as bad as Win3.1/DOS, you obviously
>have no experience with Win95. Win95 is a darn good OS, with excellent
Yes, 95 is a lot better than 3.1/DOS, but that does not qualify it as an
excellent OS.
>legacy support. Its only 'real' problem is the fact that it is actually
>a 32 MB OS and not a 16 MB one, like Microsoft and the early press
Microsoft said and advertised that 95 can be run on 386 with merely 4MB
RAM. Now you said it is a 32MB OS. What a difference!
>implied. Once you get 32 megs, everything falls into place and Win95 is
>fast, responsive, and an absolute pleasure to use.
>
Fast? Responsive? Pleasure?
Try to copy files. Try to play several movies simultaneously. Try to
drag-n-drop. If you have Plus!, try to move your windows in content mode.
Tell you what. I have Intel P166 + 128MB RAM + Matrox Millennium 4M WRAM,
and the only applications that I have are Netscape and QuickTime (yes, you
read it right: only Netscape + QuickTime. I refused to use IE). Even under
my configuration, I still don't feel any pleasure except I can play games.
BTW, my machine is not designed to run 95 though.
--
----------------
Yuwen Cheng
University of Arizona, Math
yuch...@math.arizona.edu
From: "Jeremy Reimer" <jrei...@istar.ca>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/11
Message-ID: <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209160236
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
organization: World Domination, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Yu-Wen Cheng <yuch...@math.arizona.edu> wrote in article
<5b796o$...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> >implied. Once you get 32 megs, everything falls into place and Win95 is
> >fast, responsive, and an absolute pleasure to use.
> >
>
> Fast? Responsive? Pleasure?
>
> Try to copy files.
I do it all the time. It is always faster and more smooth than on a Mac.
And yes,
I have used powerful Macs.
> Try to play several movies simultaneously.
The last time I did this, I had four movies playing simultaneously tiled so
that each
was a quarter the size of the desktop (800x600x16 bit color) Not only did
each
movie play completely smoothly, I could switch around like a TV with
picture-in-
picture, listening to the sound of each in turn (not much point in
listening to the
sound of all four at once, now is there) This was on a P166 with a cheap
ATI
card and 32 megs of RAM.
> Try to
> drag-n-drop.
I do it all the time. What is the problem?
> If you have Plus!, try to move your windows in content mode.
I love Plus and moving windows with full window drag. There is no delay
and the
window drag is smooth as glass.
> Tell you what. I have Intel P166 + 128MB RAM + Matrox Millennium 4M WRAM,
I doubt that you do. Why does my P166 with 1/4 the memory and a cheaper
video card than yours do all these amazing things that you say are
impossible
or very slow under W95? Maybe because you are a MacAdvocate and for
religious reasons refuse to believe that W95 could be any good.
> and the only applications that I have are Netscape and QuickTime (yes,
you
> read it right: only Netscape + QuickTime. I refused to use IE).
Only Netscape and Quicktime on a computer with 128 megs? And refuse to
use IE despite it being faster, equipped with more features and about ten
times
less buggy? You must be a loony.
Jeremy
From: yuch...@math.arizona.edu (Yu-Wen Cheng)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/12
Message-ID: <5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209315153
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
organization: The University of Arizona
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
On 01/10/97, "Jeremy Reimer" wrote:
>
>
>Yu-Wen Cheng <yuch...@math.arizona.edu> wrote in article
><5b796o$...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
>> >implied. Once you get 32 megs, everything falls into place and Win95 is
>> >fast, responsive, and an absolute pleasure to use.
>> >
>>
>> Fast? Responsive? Pleasure?
>>
>> Try to copy files.
>
>I do it all the time. It is always faster and more smooth than on a Mac.
>And yes,
>I have used powerful Macs.
>
Try to open two drive windows, say one is C: and the second is D:. Then try
to copy a huge directory from C: to D:. During the copying, you'll find
your D: window does not response your any further command till the job is
finished.
Then try to do it under Explorer. You'll find your Explorer also freezes
there, too. Well, of course, you can open a second Explorer windown, but
that is not the issue.
>> Try to play several movies simultaneously.
>
>The last time I did this, I had four movies playing simultaneously tiled
so
>that each
>was a quarter the size of the desktop (800x600x16 bit color) Not only did
>each
>movie play completely smoothly, I could switch around like a TV with
>picture-in-
>picture, listening to the sound of each in turn (not much point in
>listening to the
>sound of all four at once, now is there) This was on a P166 with a cheap
>ATI
>card and 32 megs of RAM.
>
Try to just play a single large movie. During the movie playing, try to do
something else (e.g. move a BIG window or open some huge files). You'll
find either the sound stopped or the sound broken.
Then also duing the movie play, try to move the movie window frame. Look
very carefully about the movie play. Does it move within your window while
your are moving the window or does it stop?
>> Try to
>> drag-n-drop.
>
>I do it all the time. What is the problem?
>
Try to drag-n-drop a GIF/JPEG file or try to do it with a txt file into
your WordPad. You'll end with only icons in your WordPad. No picture or no
text content.
I believe it is the same with Word, though I don't have Word to confirm it
now.
BTW, if you do it under either Netscape or IE, you'll find a total
different story. It is simply not consistent.
>> If you have Plus!, try to move your windows in content mode.
>
>I love Plus and moving windows with full window drag. There is no delay
>and the
>window drag is smooth as glass.
>
Don't fool yourself. Try to do it with BIG windows while some background
jobs are going. Then tell me how fast does your window redraw do.
>> Tell you what. I have Intel P166 + 128MB RAM + Matrox Millennium 4M
WRAM,
>
>
>I doubt that you do. Why does my P166 with 1/4 the memory and a cheaper
>video card than yours do all these amazing things that you say are
>impossible
>or very slow under W95? Maybe because you are a MacAdvocate and for
>religious reasons refuse to believe that W95 could be any good.
>
No, I am not a MacAdvocate. I like Mac hardware, but I don't think the
current MacOS is powerful enough; otherwise, Apple won't buy NeXT.
Actually, I am a UNIX fan. My machine is not for 95 but for a UNIX server,
though I also play games under 95/DOS.
>> and the only applications that I have are Netscape and QuickTime (yes,
>you
>> read it right: only Netscape + QuickTime. I refused to use IE).
>
>Only Netscape and Quicktime on a computer with 128 megs? And refuse to
>use IE despite it being faster, equipped with more features and about ten
>times
>less buggy? You must be a loony.
>
>Jeremy
Whether IE or Netscape is better, it is very objective. Some people say
Netscape is faster but some say not. So, it is only your business to choose
the one you like. But the reason I don't do IE is I don't want to support a
company like Microsoft. I admit that Microsoft is currently the biggest and
the most powerful software company, but except trying to copy some other
people's idea what good original idea Microsoft has ever brought to you. I
just don't want to see such an evil company getting control for our future
computing world.
--
----------------
Yuwen Cheng
University of Arizona, Math
yuch...@math.arizona.edu
From: "Robert Day" <whamo...@soltec.net>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/12
Message-ID: <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209392598
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
organization: Preferred Compnay
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
But the reason I don't do IE is I don't want to support a
> company like Microsoft. I admit that Microsoft is currently the biggest
and
> the most powerful software company, but except trying to copy some other
> people's idea what good original idea Microsoft has ever brought to you.
I
> just don't want to see such an evil company getting control for our
future
> computing world.
Well, if person B never improved on person A's ideas, we would be living in
caves, riding horses, and using ENIACs. Didn't Apple/NeXT use ideas such as
the mouse, GUI, window environment, and integrated software from the Xerox
Palo Alto Research Center??! If you, an individual, refuse to use superior
software and limit your productivity simply because you don't like
Microsoft, who REALLY loses?? Why do you say Microsoft is evil?? Let's say
Apple was in the same position as Microsoft today, would you feel that
Apple is evil?? Is it simply jealousy?? :-)
--
-Robert Day
Team Gates Member ( http://www.teamgates.com )
whamo...@soltec.net
From: rkyo...@flash.net (Bob Young)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/16
Message-ID: <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 210165553
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: STB
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: rkyo...@flash.net
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
jinx6...@sover.net (Chris Johnson) wrote:
>In article <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>, "Robert Day"
><whamo...@soltec.net> wrote:
>> Palo Alto Research Center??! If you, an individual, refuse to use superior
>> software and limit your productivity simply because you don't like
>> Microsoft, who REALLY loses??
>
> Very interesting assumptions... actually these are among the reasons I
>refuse to use any Microsoft software... MS is not capable of producing
>anything superior for my platform, Claris and even Corel handily stomp it
>into the ground (WordPerfect- reputation of being poor on Intel,
>reputation of being drastically better than Word on the Mac)
> I am told that even on the PC Microsoft software is neither superior
>nor an enhancer of productivity.
>
I confess to not having endured WordPerfect since DOS 4.1, But I have
used the last 3 versions of Word, and have found Word 7.0 quite
stable, and relatively easy to produce any type of general document,
from stick on disk labels to decent resume's to corporate reports, to
FAX cover pages. I also don't have any experience with WP or W7 on
MAC. But it sounds that its too bad that the MAC version of Word
doesn't work as well as the Windows version. Maybe something people
might want to consider when deciding on a computer.
> Jinx_tigr
> (aka Chris Johnson)
_______________________________________________
Bob Young
SE 4 STB Systems
Specialized Technology Group
Multi-Head NT Video Drivers
BYo...@STB.Com
RKYo...@Flash.Net
My Paycheck comes from STB, My Opinions Do Not
_______________________________________________
From: d...@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/01/18
Message-ID: <5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 210584224
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
followup-to: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <32dddd97.88481...@206.149.24.10>, Bob Young
(rkyo...@flash.net) wrote:
> But it sounds that its too bad that the MAC version of Word
> doesn't work as well as the Windows version. Maybe something people
> might want to consider when deciding on a computer.
That's MS's strategy. On the other hand, you might as well go with a
decent word processor like FrameMaker, which works well on the Mac,
the PC and Unix systems. Far superior to Word, especially for long
documents.
--
David F. Skoll
From: "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/10
Message-ID: <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 217886634
references: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
organization: Microsoft Corp.
newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
David F. Skoll <d...@doe.carleton.ca> wrote in article
<5bpego$...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
> In article <32dddd97.88481...@206.149.24.10>, Bob Young
> (rkyo...@flash.net) wrote:
> > But it sounds that its too bad that the MAC version of Word
> > doesn't work as well as the Windows version. Maybe something people
> > might want to consider when deciding on a computer.
>
> That's MS's strategy.
David, could you amplify on this statement a little? I'm not quite sure
what you're point is.
Thanks.
Rick Schaut
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
From: ecf_s...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Like a tea tray in the sky...)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/11
Message-ID: <11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218164987
Distribution: world
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50AXP
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>, "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
writes...
>> (rkyo...@flash.net) wrote:
>> > But it sounds that its too bad that the MAC version of Word
>> > doesn't work as well as the Windows version. Maybe something people
>> > might want to consider when deciding on a computer.
>>
>> That's MS's strategy.
>
>David, could you amplify on this statement a little? I'm not quite sure
>what you're point is.
Maybe you are wearing bg blinders, I'll try to help. The bg strategy is to
monopolize a market so everyone HAS to used their stuff, you see. Dominate
via ubiquity.
Since they have a OS monopoly (via control of distribution channels for
commodity hardware), bg Inc. dominates applications (by changing os interfaces
to hurt competitors).
Similarly the bill gates applications (which dominate, as mentioned before) are
used to leverage market away from non-dominant OS/platform (mac) by deliberately
working worse than version on bg Inc. platform.
This is the outfit you work for and how they do business. In a ruthless and
amoral manner.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_s...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - tom.oto...@jhu.edu
JHUVMS system programmer - http://jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu/~ecf_stbo/
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
'The Internet'... is not a valid Win32 application, bill. Boycott bg shoveware!
From: "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/12
Message-ID: <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218196661
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Like a tea tray in the sky... <ecf_s...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in
article <11FEB199717471...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>...
> In article <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>, "Rick Schaut"
<ri...@microsoft.com>
> >David, could you amplify on this statement a little? I'm not quite sure
> >what your point is.
> Maybe you are wearing bg blinders, I'll try to help. The bg strategy is
to
> monopolize a market so everyone HAS to used their stuff, you see.
Dominate
> via ubiquity.
For that matter, the ultimate strategy in _every_ business enterprise is to
gain as much market share as possible.
> Since they have a OS monopoly (via control of distribution channels for
> commodity hardware), bg Inc. dominates applications (by changing os
interfaces
> to hurt competitors).
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. If we can maintain a monopoly in
operating systems through control of the distribution channels, then why
spend all that money on Windows 95? If the purpose of Windows 95 was to
change the API in order to hurt competitors, then why do a new shell?
Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense on the face of it.
> Similarly the bill gates applications (which dominate, as mentioned
before) are
> used to leverage market away from non-dominant OS/platform (mac) by
deliberately
> working worse than version on bg Inc. platform.
Well, I've shipped three major pieces of Microsoft software on the
Macintosh (and have contributed to about half a dozen more), and I can
state, unequivocally, that there was no deliberate effort to make any of
the Macintosh versions worse than their Windows counterparts. In fact, I
will make that statement under oath and under penalty of purgury.
Moreover, as an applications developer at Microsoft, I _don't_ want Apple
to go belly up. I want _somebody_ breathing down the backs of those idiots
over in systems for no other reason that I don't want them to get
complacent.
BTW, if you think the desktop applications group doesn't carry much weight
in the board rooms at Microsoft, I suggest you take a look through the past
few annual reports.
> This is the outfit you work for and how they do business. In a ruthless
and
> amoral manner.
Nah. It's just a few fantasies that some folks have dreamt up largely
because they have little better to do with their lives.
Rick Schaut
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
From: ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (A Shelton)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/12
Message-ID: <5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218249008
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
NNTP-Posting-User: ashelton
"Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com> writes:
>For that matter, the ultimate strategy in _every_ business enterprise is to
>gain as much market share as possible.
And the government restricts monopolies from becoming too dominant...
in theory at least.
>> Since they have a OS monopoly (via control of distribution channels for
>> commodity hardware), bg Inc. dominates applications (by changing os
>interfaces
>> to hurt competitors).
>I'm afraid I don't follow you here. If we can maintain a monopoly in
>operating systems through control of the distribution channels, then why
>spend all that money on Windows 95? If the purpose of Windows 95 was to
>change the API in order to hurt competitors, then why do a new shell?
>Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense on the face of it.
There doesn't need to be one reason. Some reasons are.
* The win3.1 interface was deeply inferior to the mac UI in the
degree of integration.
* Microsoft only makes money when people upgrade. Thus it has to
convince people that the new system is that much better/destined
to succeed. Most people don't understand OS internals, but a gee-whiz
shell is easy (thus win95-plus).
* Win3.1 ran on top of a product which had competitors. With windows
95 there is no such possibility. This is the substance of the
Caldera DR-DOS lawsuit I believe.
* Win3.1 binary compatible systems existed, most importantly OS/2.
I don't know of any system that offers win32 binary compatibility.
Not an unhappy accident. Of course the main sucker was IBM for
basing an OS around binary compatibility with another OS.
It's also a better product of course.
>> Similarly the bill gates applications (which dominate, as mentioned
>before) are
>> used to leverage market away from non-dominant OS/platform (mac) by
>deliberately
>> working worse than version on bg Inc. platform.
>Well, I've shipped three major pieces of Microsoft software on the
>Macintosh (and have contributed to about half a dozen more), and I can
>state, unequivocally, that there was no deliberate effort to make any of
>the Macintosh versions worse than their Windows counterparts. In fact, I
>will make that statement under oath and under penalty of purgury.
The current MAC belief after the word 6.0 debacle was that microsoft
word on the mac emulates a windows API to reduce the need to port code
and this was the reason for its less than stellar performance. Still, it
will be good to see the new versions for the rhapsody kernel.
>BTW, if you think the desktop applications group doesn't carry much weight
>in the board rooms at Microsoft, I suggest you take a look through the past
>few annual reports.
The co-operative synergy between microsoft APPS and OS is at the heart
of the beast.
>> This is the outfit you work for and how they do business. In a ruthless
>and
>> amoral manner.
>Nah. It's just a few fantasies that some folks have dreamt up largely
>because they have little better to do with their lives.
I don't think its too much to suggest that microsoft engages in anti
competitive practices. From memory the Justice department did actually
slap them on the wrist for one element of this.
Of course it is a valid argument that it's not MS's job to give other
competitors breathing space, an opinion I agree with. Of course I also
think that enforcing the seperation between microsoft apps and OS is
a reasonable restraint on microsofts burgeoning monopoly.
--
I've got a good grip on reality....now I can strangle it.
Andrew Shelton s9406...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
GCS(2.1)-d+H+sw+v-C++UL+>L+++E-N++WV--R++tv-b+D++e+fr*y?
From: "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/12
Message-ID: <01bc1900$a7ef3f20$7b1a369d@richslap>
X-Deja-AN: 218301528
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
<5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
A Shelton <ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote in article
<5dsfid$gq...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
> "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com> writes:
> >For that matter, the ultimate strategy in _every_ business enterprise is
to
> >gain as much market share as possible.
> And the government restricts monopolies from becoming too dominant...
> in theory at least.
Well, in theory. Personally, I think the computer industry changes too
rapidly for the government to be effective in any way shape or form. I
also firmly believe that anyone who can do a better job of meeting real
customer needs can knock us off. It's about "value" and "value" is defined
by the folks who plunk their money down on software. This means, among
other things, that you've got to figure out what these people value rather
than try to develop software solely based upon what you value.
> >If we can maintain a monopoly in
> >operating systems through control of the distribution channels, then why
> >spend all that money on Windows 95?
> There doesn't need to be one reason. Some reasons are.
[Snip.]
> It's also a better product of course.
Thanks. I believe you've just made my point.
> >I can state, unequivocally, that there was no deliberate effort to make
any
> >of the Macintosh versions worse than their Windows counterparts.
> The current MAC belief after the word 6.0 debacle was that microsoft
> word on the mac emulates a windows API to reduce the need to port code
> and this was the reason for its less than stellar performance.
Well, it's not such a singluar reason, and that's probably one of the least
important reasons. Because the Mac doesn't do virtual memory very well
(though it's significantly better now than it was when Word 6.0 shipped)
and because we still have to tell the OS how much memory a program needs to
run, the size/performance LP has different parameters on the Mac than it
has on Windows.
But that's largely beside the point. Even if we assume that all of Word's
performance issues stem from the existence of a portability layer on the
Mac that's not on Windows, the reason for the existence of that portability
layer is to reduce the effort required to port code. Its existence isn't
driven by some desire to see the Macintosh die as a viable computing
platform. There is a difference between an ardhent desire to see the Mac
die and a simple lack of committment to shipping great Mac products.
> Still, it will be good to see the new versions for the rhapsody kernel.
Well we've made some promises regarding Office 97, and our first order of
business is to ship Office 97 on the Macintosh--an effort that won't
include a port to the Rhapsody kernel. What happens after Office 97 is
shipped is still up in the air, largely because Apple's OS story is still
very much up in the air.
That's the bad news. The good news is that we've just gone through a
significan re-org, and part of that re-org is the creation of a Macintosh
business unit within the desktop applications group, and this Macintosh
business unit has been given a very autonomous charter. The primary goal
is to ship great Macintosh products, and the only Windows constraints are
file format issues (we won't sacrifice cross-platform binary file
compatibility in the process).
> >BTW, if you think the desktop applications group doesn't carry much
weight
> >in the board rooms at Microsoft, I suggest you take a look through the
past
> >few annual reports.
>
> The co-operative synergy between microsoft APPS and OS is at the heart
> of the beast.
The interface between the application and the operating system is just too
small a factor in terms of the performance and features of an application
for this to be as big a beast as everyone makes it out to be. In the two
years that I've worked on Office 97 for Windows, I never had a problem that
required talking to someone in the systems group, nor do I know of anyone
who did have such a problem.
> I don't think its too much to suggest that microsoft engages in anti
> competitive practices. From memory the Justice department did actually
> slap them on the wrist for one element of this.
I don't know that there's any company that can claim a totally clean
record, and we do play to win. At the same time, I don't think anyone at
Microsoft has deliberately broken the rules--though I'm certain that some
ambiguities in the rules have been interpreted in ways that benefit
Microsoft.
> Of course it is a valid argument that it's not MS's job to give other
> competitors breathing space, an opinion I agree with. Of course I also
> think that enforcing the seperation between microsoft apps and OS is
> a reasonable restraint on microsofts burgeoning monopoly.
See my remarks above. I've been in the applications group for almost seven
years, and I can't recall a single decision we (i.e. the applications
group) would have made any differently if we had been a separate company.
Rick Schaut
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
From: ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (A Shelton)
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/13
Message-ID: <5dv143$agf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218517733
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
<5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1900$a7ef3f20$7b1a369d@richslap>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
NNTP-Posting-User: ashelton
"Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com> writes:
>A Shelton <ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote in article
><5dsfid$gq...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
>> "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> >For that matter, the ultimate strategy in _every_ business enterprise is
>to
>> >gain as much market share as possible.
>> And the government restricts monopolies from becoming too dominant...
>> in theory at least.
>Well, in theory. Personally, I think the computer industry changes too
>rapidly for the government to be effective in any way shape or form. I
>also firmly believe that anyone who can do a better job of meeting real
>customer needs can knock us off. It's about "value" and "value" is defined
>by the folks who plunk their money down on software.
I bet you do.
Unfortunately a lot of MS customers don't get to vote with their cash
thanks to these things called bundling deals. The latest and greatest
i heard was a CompUSA buyer who was advised that it would cost 50$ to
*remove* win95 and office because that counted as additional labor!
Of course the ability to imbed proscribed technologies such as OLE
into the continually mutating and incompatible MS data formats fairly
much guarantee's you a marketing advantage. The way in which you have
made a proprietary format (.doc) an industry standard is a marvellous
tribute to microsofts abilities.
>This means, among
>other things, that you've got to figure out what these people value rather
>than try to develop software solely based upon what you value.
well duh.
[mac word 6.0]
>Well, it's not such a singluar reason, and that's probably one of the least
>important reasons. Because the Mac doesn't do virtual memory very well
>(though it's significantly better now than it was when Word 6.0 shipped)
>and because we still have to tell the OS how much memory a program needs to
>run, the size/performance LP has different parameters on the Mac than it
>has on Windows.
Yet the previous version of word worked fine under the same memory model?
I guess what you are saying is that word6.0 was so much larger than the
virtual memory system go far more of a thrashing.
>> The co-operative synergy between microsoft APPS and OS is at the heart
>> of the beast.
>The interface between the application and the operating system is just too
>small a factor in terms of the performance and features of an application
>for this to be as big a beast as everyone makes it out to be. In the two
>years that I've worked on Office 97 for Windows, I never had a problem that
>required talking to someone in the systems group, nor do I know of anyone
>who did have such a problem.
Well I really had expected that microsofts internal documentation systems
are somewhat better than having to wander over and ask. As long as the
information you work with is identical in time and type to that available
to your competitors there cannot be a problem.
On that note what is the current publically available information on
the OLE API from which you work. Information on where I can get specs
for the MS-word .doc format would also be appreciated.
>> I don't think its too much to suggest that microsoft engages in anti
>> competitive practices. From memory the Justice department did actually
>> slap them on the wrist for one element of this.
>I don't know that there's any company that can claim a totally clean
>record, and we do play to win. At the same time, I don't think anyone at
>Microsoft has deliberately broken the rules--though I'm certain that some
>ambiguities in the rules have been interpreted in ways that benefit
>Microsoft.
As long as people know who they are getting into bed with when they
come to depend on MS protocols it's really their own look out. Perhaps
they don't feel they have any choice.
For myself I don't trust IBM, Apple and especially MS to guard my
interests and prefer systems with multiple vendors. Which I guess
narrows the market down to one product :)
And that way if MS does get a Megalomania complex, which the latest
EULA manipulations are indicative of, then it pains me not at all.
--
I've got a good grip on reality....now I can strangle it.
Andrew Shelton s9406...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
GCS(2.1)-d+H+sw+v-C++UL+>L+++E-N++WV--R++tv-b+D++e+fr*y?
From: "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/13
Message-ID: <01bc1a04$e71c1560$a623379d@richs>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218628324
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
<5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1900$a7ef3f20$7b1a369d@richslap>
<5dv143$agf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
A Shelton <ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote in article
<5dv143$ag...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
> "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com> writes:
> >> The co-operative synergy between microsoft APPS and OS is at the heart
> >> of the beast.
> >The interface between the application and the operating system is just
too
> >small a factor in terms of the performance and features of an
application
> >for this to be as big a beast as everyone makes it out to be.
> Well I really had expected that microsofts internal documentation systems
> are somewhat better than having to wander over and ask. As long as the
> information you work with is identical in time and type to that available
> to your competitors there cannot be a problem.
Actually, it is. The information to which I have access is the latest MSDN
CD.
> On that note what is the current publically available information on
> the OLE API from which you work.
Point your browser to http://www.microsoft.com/msdn There isn't anything
to which I have access that can't be found there.
> Information on where I can get specs
> for the MS-word .doc format would also be appreciated.
This is relevant to understanding what, if any, "co-operative synergy"
exists between the applications and systems groups at Microsoft? An
explanation of how this relates to any advantange Microsoft applications
can possibly gain from such a realtionship would also be appreciated.
> For myself I don't trust IBM, Apple and especially MS to guard my
> interests and prefer systems with multiple vendors. Which I guess
> narrows the market down to one product :)
Certainly does.
> And that way if MS does get a Megalomania complex, which the latest
> EULA manipulations are indicative of, then it pains me not at all.
Is this yet another case of the infamous USENET variety of inductive
reasoning (i.e. that found most predominantly in alt.comspiracy)?
Rick Schaut
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
From: Jeremy Allison <j...@cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/14
Message-ID: <3304C039.2A74@cygnus.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218815694
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
<5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1900$a7ef3f20$7b1a369d@richslap>
<5dv143$agf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1a04$e71c1560$a623379d@richs>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Cygnus Solutions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: j...@cygnus.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
Rick Schaut (ri...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>
> A Shelton <ashel...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote in article
> > Information on where I can get specs
> > for the MS-word .doc format would also be appreciated.
>
> This is relevant to understanding what, if any, "co-operative synergy"
> exists between the applications and systems groups at Microsoft? An
> explanation of how this relates to any advantange Microsoft applications
> can possibly gain from such a realtionship would also be appreciated.
>
I can't let this go.
I have a perfect example of how application groups at Microsoft gain
competative advantage from their relationship with the OS groups.
Back when SQLserver 4.21 was released on NT3.5, one of the much touted
fetaures
was the ability to do 'unified logon'. This feature allowed an NT
administrator
to create a user, and for SQLserver to automatically allow that user
access into
the SQLserver database, based on their NT logon ID.
I wanted to implement this exact same feature for an application vendor
who shall remain nameless (they depend upon the good will of Microsoft
for much of their business, as do many in this industry, and also in the
interests of full disclosure, I own much stock in this company and don't
want to see them damaged).
I attempted, from the published documentation at the time, to implement
this feature.
It was impossible, given the published API docs.
*This* is an example of the advantage the Microsoft applications groups
gain over everyone else in the industry. To deny it is denying the truth
that many app developers live with every day.
After six months or so, enough time for SQLserver to have gained a
significant market share on NT, the API's that were being used
internally
were released. Was this market share due to the hidden functionality
being used in SQLserver ? Probably not, being honest. But the fact was
that Microsoft used an anti-competitive practice to attempt gain
advantage.
Whether the advantage was actually gained or not is immaterial.
This is why the US Justice Dept. should (in my opinion) split Microsoft
into Microsoft Applications, and Microsoft OS - two businesses only able
to comminicate API's by publishing books.
Jeremy Allison.
j...@cygnus.com
From: "Rick Schaut" <ri...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about Microsft?
Date: 1997/02/15
Message-ID: <01bc1b3e$6367ca80$8f19369d@richslap>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218965324
References: <5b796o$kue@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <5b7mhf$a37@news.istar.ca>
<5baelh$eb6@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <01bc00bb$78fc0d40$2ad894ce@default>
<jinx6568-1401971156480001@news.sover.net> <32dddd97.88481950@206.149.24.10>
<5bpego$rdt@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <01bc1799$eefb1a00$a623379d@richs>
<11FEB199717471592@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <01bc18ac$96fdfac0$5818369d@richslap>
<5dsfid$gqj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1900$a7ef3f20$7b1a369d@richslap>
<5dv143$agf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bc1a04$e71c1560$a623379d@richs>
<3304C039.2A74@cygnus.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Jeremy Allison <j...@cygnus.com> wrote in article
<3304C039.2...@cygnus.com>...
> I attempted, from the published documentation at the time, to implement
> this feature. [Unified logon as implemented in SQLServer 4.2 on NT 3.5.]
>
> It was impossible, given the published API docs.
[Snip.]
> After six months or so, enough time for SQLserver to have gained a
> significant market share on NT, the API's that were being used
> internally were released.
Jeremy, would you mind being more specific in this? Both the Token API's
and the Messaging API's were well documented before NT 3.5, so I'm not sure
which API's you're referring to. So, specificly, which API's are you
talking about, and be precise in what you mean by "published" (often the
first publication of information is to MSDN subscribers)?
> Was this market share due to the hidden functionality
> being used in SQLserver ?
Presumably, we want to sell copies of Windows NT as much as we want to sell
copies of SQLServer. In fact, I'd say it's _more_ important to sell copies
of Windows NT than to sell copies of SQLServer. This would include the
desire to sell copies of Windows NT to companies that already have a legacy
of software using, say, Sybase or Oracle software.
In other words, you are claiming that we deliberately crippled sales of
Windows NT just to get a six-month edge in SQLServer. Sorry, but I've
never met even a program manager that was _that_ stupid.
Rick Schaut
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation