Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: David Maynard on 4 Jul 2005 20:24 John Doe wrote: > David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > > >>kony wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard >>><nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>kony wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard >>>>><nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict >>>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed > > when the > >>>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote? >>>> >>>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered. >>>> >>>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was > > 'free' while > >>>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money. >>> >>> >>>No, >> >>Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's > > wallet," > >>which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost > > cutting even > >>though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing. >> >> >>>you were the one arguing about it costing them money, >> >>Yes, I was and am. Because it does. >> >> >>>so >>>within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd >>>have to actually add features rather than subtract them if >>>they had a competitive market. >> >>Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a > > meaningless > >>protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange. >> >>Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage > > in > >>'supporting' inferiority. > > > Are you talking about Windows? I'm talking about Kony's assertion of what would happen in a "competitive market." > 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." >>You're letting emotion obscure reasoning. > > > Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Typical knee jerk illogic.
From: kony on 5 Jul 2005 01:20 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.
From: Black Adder on 5 Jul 2005 07:02 not at all. Just used conventional networking practices. I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for people who don't know what they're doing. Like the home networking wizard! What a shamozzle! "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d323a7ce235389798a200(a)news.individual.net... > In article <42c7d91e$0$843$61c65585(a)uq-127creek-reader- > 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says... >> >> "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4(a)news.individual.net... >> > In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585(a)uq-127creek-reader- >> > 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says... >> >> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than >> >> XP. >> >> Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs >> >> faster than those OS's. >> >> >> > 2000 is better than XP. >> Absolute Rubbish! >> > >> > Have you ever tried networking with XP? >> Yes, but I do it properly >> > In other words you hacked the registry and turned off some of those > "features that make XP better than 98/2000" > > > > -- > Conor > > -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room > K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
From: David Maynard on 5 Jul 2005 21:19 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) So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of how they would behave in a competitive market? Answer: it doesn't.
From: kony on 6 Jul 2005 02:22
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. > >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. By not having to compete, they don't have to be feature-competitive. It worked, it is even known how to make it work again. They certainly do NOT have any kind of financial restrains keeping them from testing it. Your arguments about cost are simply invalid. In FACT they could now give away windows free and still afford to support it. 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. |