Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: David Maynard on 6 Jul 2005 10:41 kony wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:19:26 -0500, David Maynard > <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > > >>kony wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:24:41 -0500, David Maynard >>><nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>As decided by our courts, Microsoft >>>>>in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating >>>>>system market. >>>> >>>>Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a >>>>"competitive market." >>> >>> >>> >>>No, it's not. >> >> >>Yes, it is. >> >>Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract >>them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's >>already been dealt with) > > > "Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as > again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in > other discusssions. I did not just 'disagree'. I gave you what the other alternatives are and those kinds of decisions are made every day in development meetings. You're faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a target price, hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with deciding which features give the best return and the others, which might still have a 'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost escalate beyond the target market. So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there is one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate enough to be there. And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd probably find a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either. Netbeui is a no brainer. What does it do that the ones you MUST support don't? Nothing. Kill it. >>So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of >>how they would behave in a competitive market? > > > > It is relevant to my position that they would need add > features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't > have available. I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that has nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and that is what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would do' in a competitive market. And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter whether Microsoft is a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether it's Microsoft or someone selling sandals. > By not having to compete, they don't have > to be feature-competitive. Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price pressures would preclude such waste. > It worked, it is even known how > to make it work again. They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally. They just don't 'support' it nor test to see if something broke it. Nor do they intend to 'fix' it if something did. And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY. > They certainly do NOT have any kind > of financial restrains keeping them from testing it. I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'. > Your > arguments about cost are simply invalid. My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the costs involved. If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so someone can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false claim that support is 'free'. > In FACT they could > now give away windows free and still afford to support it. That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely have a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal. > The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business" > because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a > monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations > because of it. "It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.
From: Duane Arnold on 6 Jul 2005 11:15 David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > I did not just 'disagree'. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! > I gave you what the other alternatives are and those kinds of decisions > are made every day in development meetings. Why do you ask what the other alternatives are? > You're faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a > target price, hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with > deciding which features give the best return and the others, which might > still have a 'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost > escalate beyond the target market. How do you know I am almost always faced with deciding which features give the best return and the others? > So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there > is one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate > enough to be there. You most certainly are saying there is one. > And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd probably find > a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either. Hmmm really? Only a little? > Netbeui is a no brainer. Classic pontification. > What does it do that the ones you MUST support don't? Why should I support do not, Maynard? > Nothing. Nothing at all? > Kill it. Have you ever killed anyone? > I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that > has nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and > that is what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would > do' in a competitive market. Everything I know fits into a 116kB database supported by 600k of AI code. > And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter whether Microsoft is > a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether it's Microsoft or > someone selling sandals. Classic hearsay. > Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include > useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price > pressures would preclude such waste. Are you worried about money? > They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally. Untrue. > They just don't 'support' it nor test to see if something broke it. Classic lack of specificity by someone who is humourless. > Nor do they intend to 'fix' it if something did. Tell me about your intentions. > And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY. If you need a reason, blame your parents. > I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'. Untrue. > My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in > software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the > costs involved. Why do you ask what 'support' means? > If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so > someone can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false > claim that support is 'free'. What do you want from life? > That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely > have a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal. You seem frustrated. > "It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means. Are you trying to please an imaginary crowd?
From: Michael Thomas on 6 Jul 2005 14:18 Could you guys just "agree to disagree" and let this thread die? Have a nice day, MT
From: kony on 6 Jul 2005 15:37 On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:18:36 -0700, Michael Thomas <mtNOSPAMMING(a)armory.com> wrote: >Could you guys just "agree to disagree" and let this thread die? > >Have a nice day, > >MT LOL, yeah I was getting to that in my last post, me & DM do this a lot.
From: David Maynard on 7 Jul 2005 00:07
kony wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:18:36 -0700, Michael Thomas > <mtNOSPAMMING(a)armory.com> wrote: > > >>Could you guys just "agree to disagree" and let this thread die? >> >>Have a nice day, >> >>MT > > > LOL, yeah I was getting to that in my last post, me & DM do > this a lot. Hehe. Ok, Ok. But it was fun brain exercise ;) |