Posts by Lewis Mettler

to send TXTs? unlikely

But the common availability of voice-to-text programs prevented the evolutionary development over the last thousand years or so. No need to use your thumbs because you could just talk.

the one I used from 1972 on

Each time I see a history of the personal computer I find that almost no one knows how it really began.

In 1972 both HP and Wang developed and sold a PC fully capable of programming in Basic and operating fully on the desktop. The HP unit even offered a letter quality printer (converted Facit typewriter), a high speed thermal printer (250 lpm and silent) plus an IO bus capable of addressing up to 15 IO devices including plotters, card readers and more. Even a modem.

It also offered a hard disc using a controller that would support two hard disc drives and four desktop units.

All from HP. Fully supported by HP.

Now you can get picky and claim it was not a microprocessor. And it was not. But, if you could program in Basic you could have it do just about anything you needed on the desktop. I did. Financial analysis. Word processing. You name it. It was a personal computer to the full extent of the meaning.

Yet, history is lost. Actually not quiet. See the HP museum web site. Look for the HP 9830A unit. Never even had a floppy disc because the technology was not yet developed and reliable enough. But, it did have a hard disc available.

I programmed one and had it fully operational in a law office by 1974.

Sorry for going all the way back. But, it was fun and commercial.

really? you think that?

Illegal acts from Microsoft are targeted at the non-technical users. And that is why it is illegal in the first place.

And for the really stupid people out there, no one is making money off their browser distribution for the simple and complete reason that Microsoft forces all consumers to purchase IE. Even under the ballot screen.

Microsoft in fact does make money off of IE. Probably about $35 a copy. That is the price they charged before their illegal conduct began. And there is no reason to think otherwise. Oh, except for those who lie and claim because the price is not disclosed it must be free. Idiots. Maybe you pay $200 for IE and the OS is free. One is just as likely as the other. And in fact, with illegal acts either could be true. Consumers are not given the choice. If you want the OS you have to buy IE too. If you want IE you have to also purchase the OS.

It is an issue because it is illegal and everyone at Microsoft knows that for a fact (or is a bonafide idiot). Certainly not very intelligent. Any Microsoft lawyer can explain it to you if you still do not understand.

the purpose

The purpose here it to make it much more difficult to install anything other than the latest version from Microsoft.

You are an idiot if you think otherwise.

So you really think that Microsoft would except such roadblocks preventing the use of a Microsoft product.?

Force consumers to buy the Microsoft product. And then make it as difficult as possible for a consumer to use anything else. It does not have to be technically impossible to have a huge affect upon consumers.

Consumers are just dumb idiots being manipulated by Microsoft to secure their monopoly. You are real stupid if you do not understand that.

Re: Oh FFS Microsoft

Either all Microsoft employees are really dumb and stupid or they just think they can continue illegal practices if they ignore authorities.

I am sure Ballmer told the underlings to jut ignore the EU commission requirements. If they complain, I can act dumb and stupid and act like I had no idea what our obligations may have been.

Ballmer is pretty dumb. But, not that dumb. He is just dishonest and coniving. Hoping that if they just ignore the EU they can use their illegal practices to get a leg up on everyone and screw their customers.

It is that simple.

first ensure fair competition in the browser market

Illegal business practices in the browser market have been in play for many years. Since 1995 for sure.

Seems the EU should first address clearly illegal bundling and commingling between the OS and IE before they get all upitty about advangtages in search. No one is forcing consumers to click on particular search links. Microsoft does force consumers to purchase IE. Purchase means money.

Yet, the EU claims to be concerned about competition? What a joke.

Both the EU commission and the US DOJ have lost all credibiltiy because they have refused to act to ensure the browser market if fair and open. Instead they help close it.

Google should just tell the EU that they will address those concerns when they can SELL Chrome preinstalled on Microsoft systems (i.e. IE not included).

Why doesn't the EU require IE to be unbundled and uncommingled? Does not that illegal act give Microsoft an unfair advantage? Buy IE first, then you can download other technologies which must be free simply because the market was illegally ruined.

These authorities prove they are idiots.

better than forced to purchase it

Being encouraged to download an applications is so much better than being illegally forced to purchase it. No. IE is not free. Not when you pay for it.

Just because Microsoft does not disclose the price you pay does not mean it is free. At least that is not what Microsoft tells stockholders. They are told the price is part of the unearned income Microsoft collects from customers. And the law says it is not free either. When you buy a bag of stuff, some of the price is allocated to each of the items in the bag.

If you're the person with IE you are a fool and an idiot. And you do not even know it.

And your opinion does not count either. Not on here. Not anywhere. You just do not count.

removing IE would also help

It is illegal for Microsoft to continue to commingle IE and OS technology. The US Appellate court said so in plain English. Microsoft even appealled that decision (so clearly they know it is illegal) to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the decision stands.

Dropping a product so few consumers want and few use would also help give consumers the choice of which browser they want on their machines.

And, then Microsoft could be legal again. A prerequisite certainly if Microsoft wants to complain about anything competitors might be doing as far as antitrust is concerned.

not to justify Google but

Not to justify Google but Microsoft forces the sale of IE upon all of their customers illegally.

Yes, slow learners, it is illegal to commingle the code between the OS and IE yet Microsoft continues to do so in order to force the sale of IE upon you and prevent you from removing the application.

As long as you accept outright illegal practices from Microsoft you can hardly speak at all about what anyone else may do.

but Apple does nothing to earn their 30% cut

But Apple does nothing to earn their 30% cut.

At least in the music industry, they do help develope the material and help market it. Apple promises nothing. And Apple does nothing.

Making the work available online IS nothing. Or allowing the owner to make it available online IS nothing.

Apple demands their 30% but refuses to do anything to earn it.

MS does violate the law

There is no question that Microsoft continues to illegally market IE and the OS.

That has been determined by the US Appellate courts. And, no, Microsoft has not stopped that illegal practice of commingling the code between the OS and IE.

And for the slow learners out there, they do that so that YOU do not have the option not to buy, install, maintain, support or use IE.

Not only do your opinions not count if you have a copy of IE, your choice as a consumer also does not count.

If Microsoft discontinues it's own illegal acts perhaps they might be taken seriously. But, they never will.

Microsoft controls your machines.

Microsoft forced you to purchase IE. (Did you pay for Chrome?)

Microsoft pevents you from removing IE. (Does Google do that with Chrome?)

Micosoft makes your IT decisions for you. (Does Google do that?)

Sounds like the so called IT managers on here are really Microsoft employees. Hint: You are.

idiots buy from Apple

Perhaps those idiots that bought from Apple now understand the policy.

Blocking non-apple stores is all part of the plan. So too with charging a 30% cut for subscriptions. And now it is clear that Apple blocks or delays competing services.

Buying Apple means you are a fool.

and forcing the sale of IE

Both Gates and Ballmer like the idea of forcing all consumers to purchase IE.

You bought it, right?

Perhaps not. If you did not buy anything from Microsoft.

But, there are few stupid enough not to know that illegally bundling IE was the plan for Microsoft. At least not those who are intelligent enough to write code. Nothing beats sales better than a forced sale.

Remember the threat Gates gave Netscape? Stay away from the Microsoft market or we will just bundled IE. Simple enough. Even a moron can understand the affect such illegal acts would have on the industry. Or, course Gates was ignorant. He used the "b" (bundle) word before his lawyers reminded him that bundling was illegal. Then the idiot claimed that IE was not an application at all.

Microsoft continues to illegally bundle IE thanks to paying off the US DOJ and the EU Commission. And they continue to illegally commingle the code between the OS and IE.

WHY?

To force you to purchase IE. And to stop you from removing the application after your purchase too.

In other words, your opinion does not count.

I feel sorry for the engineers who think their success has anything to do with them.

Certainly any engineer with half a brain knows that having your product sold by force is best. Screw the customer. They do not count pass their wallet.

not to mention

Not to mention your accident resulted from the lack of attention while you were talking on the phone.

HP-80 anyone

Yes, my 12C still sits on the desk today. But, the HP-80 was the original financial calculator in the day. I saw a HP-35 when it first came out. End of the slip stick. But, the HP-80 was financial.

I was selling real estate at the time. The Wall Street Journal had a full page ad introducing the HP-80. Sent off the $395 right from the ad.

I was really impressed. Ended up buying a HP-81 too. (Remember the HP-36? A desktop version of the 35?) Also sent off to HP for more info on desktop systems. A brochure on the HP-9830A came back. Desktop, programmable in BASIC. 4kRam. 32 Character Display. Learned how to program by reading the user manual. All of that in 1972. You can still see it at HPMuseum.org.

Finally sold the Hp-81 a few years ago for $500 on eBay. Turns out some guy repaired HP calculators and just had to have an 81. 81 was the desktop version of the 80, precursor to the 12C.

Apple is worse

If you look at the number of policies intended to control the consumer and limit their choices to company products only, Apple is the worst.

Of course, in some cases, Apple does not hold sufficient market power for its acts to be illegal. But, usually in those cases, such policies also fail to work. In fact, when they do work, it is because Apple has sufficient market power. Just look at the difference in policies for the iDevices versus the Mac. Even the policy of not licensing the MAC OS on other hardward suggests that Apple thinks it can force all consumers to buy Apple hardware if they want the MAC OS. And that is true even though consumers would always prefer to have a choice of hardware.

As with rape, it is all about controlling the consumer and restricting their choices. Rape is not about sex. It is about control. Control over the victim. Microsoft knows that. Apple knows that. And that is why they adopt the policies you see.

Keep the consumer under control and prevent them from gaining any benefit from alternative products. Why do you think such acts are illegal?

regardless of merit

The quality of IE is just not relevant.

You have to purchase it regardless of what you think.

So why test IE at all? You still have to buy it.

Why even talk about it? You still have to buy it anyway.

Microsoft is a rapist that thinks that rape is okay if they can argue the sex was good. That is all there is to their PR about IE. Entirely. People are supposed to feel good about being raped. They no choice in the matter.

It is illegal to commingle IE code with the OS. And Microsoft continues to do that. So where is the decision by any consumer? Does it matter is IE is good or not? Ask someone who has been raped. Ask someone who has a copy of IE.

Either you have the choice as a consumer or you do not. With Microsoft you absolutely do not have the choice. You MUST BUY IE. You must pay for the R&D. You must pay for the marketing. You MUST pay for the PR crap. You must pay.

So why are you even bothering to evaluate it? You have to buy it regardless. And you can not remove it. You are raped. Only Microsoft employees claim to think otherwise. Or, consultants paid by Microsoft.

no doubt

It is just a routine, an algorithm, a way of arranging and accessing data.

No doubt this patent is also an example of a patent for which the original application intentionally omitted prior art.

It is known that software patents routinely omit prior art in the application. And that effort is deliberate.

And, of course, Linux has nothing to do with it other than being one example of programming that happens to use the technology.

Maybe with some luck this case can be appealed to the US Supreme Court and convince just about everyone how stupid it is to patent software.

simple

It is not that making a Microsoft phone is a bad idea.

The bad idea is focusing entirely on one OS. Particularly one that has not proven itself in the marketplace.

If you really just compete with Motorola, HTC and others making phones then you do not limit yourself to one solution. Particularly an unproven one. One with different economics. One with a company proven to abuse its partners and competitors.

Nokia management is very poor. And it will likely mean the demise of Nokia itself.

Of course, they could wake up and decide to put up an Android phone too. Should be easy enough to do. Then they could actually compete against the handset makers that cover all the bases and try to follow the market rather than dictate it.

Elop still thinks he is employed by Microsoft. He is not. But, thinking so will ruin Nokia.

got a point

No doubt volunteers could be available for a one-way trip.

Being the first man on mars has to come with some bonus points.

And strangely enough there would be little value in people returning from mars. It is unlikely they would ever go again on another trip. And all of the value of having been there can be realized without a return. If you lose communication, you aint coming back anyway.

I can think of a thousand worse ways to die. And a thousand worse places too.

The old saying "a wonderful day to die" (somehow attributed to the american indian) could be rewritten as "a wonderful place to die".

We are all mortal. So either you go away quietly or you make some noise.

following MS bull

If you follow the MS marketspeak, you must also conclude that Chrome OS will be better than even IE on the Microsoft OS.

Why?

Simply. The Chrome OS is designed to support the Chrome browser and ONLY the Chrome browser. And not all those other applications that Microsoft has to support.

So if the market speak makes any sense it all it supports the Chrome OS much more so than anything that Microsoft sells.

or were forced to purchase

If you have a copy of IE, you were forced to buy it.

If you have a copy of IE, your opinion on browsers simply does not count. You bought IE regardless. Fools are parted from their money every time.

but the purchase of IE was not a choice at all

You were forced to buy IE.

How is that a choice?

If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simply does not matter. Microsoft does not permit it. You will purchase IE anyway.

same standard?

Microsoft continues to violate the US Antitrust laws by contining to commingle the OS and IE.

So just what standard is Microsoft complying with?

If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simply does not count. And my view does not count much either. But, Microsoft insists that your opinion does not matter. You will purchase IE again and again regardless of what you may think.

first use not that important

First use is not that important.

When it comes to generic names or descriptions the use and practice in the industry is much more important.

Maybe Apple users think that only Apple exists so when they use the term "app store" then think only of Apple. But, generally the population refers to an app store as a place where you shop and buy apps. And that is true for Blackberry, Android and even Microsoft phones. Or, tablets.

Apple is not the only source for Apps. They may think they are. They may wish they were. But, they are not. And it is the use of the term across the industry that counts.

Claiming that app is short for Apple does not count either. Most users in the industry do not use it that way. No one does. It is just a place to get apps.