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.
191 posts • joined 1 Jul 2008
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.
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.
It remains illegal for Microsoft to commingle the OS and IE. No settlement of any kind changes the law.
Microsoft appealed the decision finding them to be in violation of the federal antitrust laws in the States. The appeal (based on commingling) was denied. Did not even want to hear about it.
And Microsoft tried to just ignore their obligations in the EU acting dumb and stupid.
Well, Microsoft is run by dumb and stupid people. But, not so dumb as to actually believe themselves.
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.
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.
But, the Apple I was the unit that when you look at the engineering drawings looked just like an HP 2640A Communications Terminal, from HP of course.
Gee, wonder how those boys got those ideas?
Of course, the valley was all about sharing at the time and HP was not much interested in toy computers. But, they did put out some of the best communications terminals. They even had an early Intel chip. The 8008 as I recall.
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.
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.
But, what about the continued illegal practice of forcing all consumers to purchase Internet Exporer? Is that not a significant disadvantage for alternative technologies?
Yet, the EU approves that illegal act. The EU approves that?
Seems like the EU commission should at least be consistent and just wave their hands and suggest that if Google does not exclude completely competing services from their searches that everything is just fine? You know, like the stupid suggestion that a ballot screen offsets the forced sale and use of Internet Exporer? (Google does not require anyone to use their others services. Microsoft does.)
You do not suppose that Microsoft is behind those complaints to the EU? Nah. They know they get away scott clean with their own illegal acts. They would never suggest much higher restrictions should be placed against others? Do you think?
Microsoft never has complied with antitrust law.
The US Appellate court did decide that commingling the code between IE and the OS was a violation of antitrust law. And that decision is now the law. Not only of the case but also of antitrust law in the US.
For those slow learners, settlements NEVER determine what the law is. Only appellate court decisions do that.
And since the US DOJ took money or support from Microsoft rather than inforce the law as decided against Microsoft, it is not surprise to find Microsoft violating the law yet again.
For anyone thinking they like being denied choices in the marketplace, your mother has some clothes laid out for you on the bed. And she packed a lunch for you too.
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.
Nokia was in the phone handset business not the promote Microsoft software business.
Unfortunately, Elop was too stupid to know it.
If you really want to be successful selling phone handsets you should not and can not limit your hardware to a single platform. There is absolutely no reason to do so.
Apple thinks there is. But, they will be rellagated to a premium high priced market - a niche market. So too is Nokia. Just not the premium market. More like an also ran with a small percentage of the overall market.
Nokia should be trying to license the Apple technology if it could. Maybe Apple will have none of that. But, Android is readily available. And yes, by this time Nokia could easily have a number of Android phones out there doing well. But, instead they are sinking fast. A phone from Microsoft is not going to make any company profitable. Unless, of course, it is just one of the many options available.
Elop was only interested in what Microsoft wanted. That is very clear and obvious. And it has doomed Nokia.
Amazon may not be doing the same thing at all.
The Amazon T&Cs may restrict a seller from offering a lower wholesale price elsewhere (not sure what the actual language says) but that is very different than Apple's attempt to control the retail price to consumers. Apple's policy is to prevent price competition across all channels. The Amazon policy may not.
The second point is that if Amazon is cheap enough, no one else may have much an incentive to sell it cheaper anyway.
Generally, it is fair for a wholesaler to set their wholesale price. But, even they can get into trouble when they try to control the retail price. And in almost all markets the wholesaler can not control or limit the retail price of their products. Apple clearly demanded the right to control the retail price through all channels including direct sales. Or, wholesales forgo the Apple marketplace.
It is combination of this attempt plus the 30% cut that forces high prices to all consumers (Apple and others). That is what is harmful about the policy. And very likely illegal because it does set a high fixed price for products for all consumers.
Many retail sellers might be willing to accept a lessor cut than 30%. But, Apple illegally precludes it via their favored nation policy and high markup.
What does Apple do for it's 30% cut. Practically nothing. Brink and motar stores actually buy inventory, stock it, advertise it, give it shelf space, promote it and handle the merchandise. Apple does none of that. Only the electronic delivery. Yet they demand a high market AND preclude other perhaps more efficient channels from offering price competition.
If you can not buy it cheaper somewhere else, you are paying too high a price. And that harms all consumers simply because Apple wants a 30% cut and wants to preclude price competition. So you get high retail prices fixed by agreement between Apple and some distributors. What's not to like, unless you are a consumer being screwed.
Jerkheads run Apple. And they have been caught out.
Of course, any wholesaler wants a high price too. And Apple wants a high 30% cut. (Did not Google suggest 10% was more appropriate?). And Google is not trying to control the retail price through other channels. And it sounds like the Amazon deal only affects the wholesale price not the retail price. Apple wants to illegally control both the wholesale and retail price across the industry. That way it can collect 30% for doing nothing.
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.
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.
Barnes & Noble's allegations may or may not be judged on their merits.
But, what about Microsoft's allegations. Microsoft is bringing the patent law suit. Fair reporting would have suggested that allegations by both sides might be judged on their merits.
Devious legal counsel can get in the way too. And good counsel can straighten a few things out.
At best it is likely to be a circus. Order up some popcorn and peanuts. Maybe a cold drink.
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 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.
You purchased IE without any decision on your part.
Yes, it may be a bit arrogant of Google. But, Microsoft forced you to purchase IE illegally. Commingled the code illegally. And prevents you from ever removing it.
If you think you are in control of your own machine, you are an idiot.
Too bad you can not possibly stop IE from being installed.
Funny how IT complains about not being in control when Microsoft demands they install IE and PREVENT its removal. No matter what trick you think you know.
IT is not in control of any of their machines. Microsoft is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Apple is quite willing to harm consumers in order to control them and gain a dominant position.
Forcing consumers to only use the Apple app store is one example. Opening that up so that Amazon and others can offer apps for iDevices should be required in order to protect consumers and provide some choice.
Clearly Apple is trying to protect the iTunes monopoly position by forcing media companies to pay that 30% cut or be excluded from the iDevice marketplace. That too is going to require an antitrust review. Actually the whole 30% cut policy is aimed at restricting any possible competition unless Apple is cut in for their share. And a 30% cut for doing nothing but not blocking access to Apple customers is trouble in the beginning. And nothing about that policy benefits consumers. Apple and everyone else is forced to pay higher retail prices just because Apple wants to force the issue (or block access to Apple customers). Customers owned by Apple of course.
Microsoft is still violating federal antitrust laws by commingling IE and OS code. And every Microsoft lawyers know that are engaged in that illegal activity. Consumers are not so intelligent. Some know that. Some do not. And Microsoft employees still try to lie about it.
Same with the Apple employees: Lying to consumers about illegal activity is part of the business plan for both Apple and Microsoft. Claiming to be a consumer while lying about such illegal acts is all too transparent.
Consumers always want choice. They always want the choice of buying the browser of their choice and leaving the crap at the store. And they always want the choice of buying apps at Amazon or elsewhere. And they always want the choice of which apps they buy and use. Any idiot suggesting otherwise is a company employee. Consumers never want the lack of of choice.
But, you can expect company employees to continue to claim to be a consumer yet plying the company line. They always give themselves away when they do so.
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.
Microsoft bundled IE to force you to buy it. You have to be real slow in the thinking department not to know that.
And the truth remains: The US Appellate Courts decided that commingling code between the OS and IE was in fact illegal. That has not changed. Microsoft continues that illegal practice despite the bad engineering.
Just how many copies of IE have you had? And how many of them did you purchase?
If you have a copy of IE, Microsoft mandates that your opinion matters not one bit. You will buy it again and again. Illegally. The consumer is not engaged in the illegal practice but Microsoft certainly is. All lawyers at Microsoft know that for fact. Maybe you have not figured it out yet?
That would be pretty slow thinking.
Funny how it is that Microsoft employees always suggest that their illegal business practices should be ignored and everyone should only look at their technical work.
I have absolutely no intrerest in any company or their products when they count upon illegal practices to force the sale of their products. Period.
If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simiply does not count. Microsoft prevents it. And that includes your opinion of IE.
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.
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.
It is false to assume that Nokia could only put out one phone and therefore must choose between Microsoft, Google or even Apple or RIM.
If you are going to focus upon making handsets, you do not limit your choices to only one OS. That is just stupid. Who knows, Apple may decide to license iOS. Not likely, but it could happen.
What is stupid is for Nokia to focus on Microsoft at the expense of Google. That thought is a Microsoft thought. Elop still thinks Microsoft butters his bread. But, it does not.
The success of Nokia depends upon them to be present in all of the OS markets. Why restrict yourself? Lack of resources? Hardly. Many others in the industry with far fewer resouces will have not only Microsoft phones but Android as well. If Android does better, they succeed. If Microsoft does better, they still succeed. But, if Android does well Nokia dies off.
Why focus upon one solution when you can cover the market. Others have done so. And others will continue to do so. They will remain alive and well as Nokia risks death. Likely death.
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.
If you follow the MS marketspeak, you must also conclude that Chrome OS will be better than even IE on the Microsoft OS.
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.
No doubt the idiots at Microsoft know illegal acts when they see them. They can read the US Appellate decisions too. And they did. When Microsoft was found to be in violation of the antitrust laws in the US, they appealled to the US Supreme Count hoping to avoid the illegality of commingling IE with the OS. They lost. Doing so remains illegal.
If the idiots at Microsoft stop their clearly obvious illegal acts, then perhaps they can speak. Otherwise perhaps not.
If you have a copy of IE, you have been screwed by Smith and his boys.
Google does not force you to buy anything, yet Microsoft is complaining like a spoiled child.
If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simply does not matter. Microsoft insists upon it.
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.
There are ways to avoid buying Microsoft products just as there are ways not to use any Google services or products.
But, that fact does not affect any determination of whether or not either company has a monopoly or even monopoly power.
Generally speaking a 70% dominance is enough. But, as Apple has proven even less than that can cause a company to think it has enough control over consumers to act like a monopoly. And to adopt policies that preclude competition.
If you have a copy of IE, you have been screwed by monopoly power.
If you do not have access to certain services or have to pay a 42% higher price for subscriptions, you too have been harmed by monopoly powers. Hint: A lot of companies have said they will avoid the "convenience" of the Apple marketplace simply because Apple is insisting upon too high a cut. And that would increase the cost for ALL CONSUMERS not just those who made the mistake of buying something from Apple. Read the Apple policy. It clearly says that if you do not give up any thought of price competition through other channels including your own web site, you will be BLOCKED by Apple.
So even if you do not buy any Microsoft product, any Apple product or perhaps use any Google services, you do pay higher prices when monopolists screw consumers. Apple is the most recent and most obvious example of that. But, you still buy IE, right? That is not a choice you have to make. It has been illegally removed.
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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020