HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Re: MS-DOS bundling (was: FCC will proclaim ...)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:46:29 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Now, look at the situation.  This is NOT a volume discount, since the
> number of units of MS-DOs I buy has nothing to do with it.  After all,
> Cloner B is only buying 10k copies a year and he gets it for $8/copy.
> Cloner B, with a much higher volume of 75k copies/year can only get it
> for twice that unless he pays MS for 25k machines/year on which he
> does NOT install MS-DOS.

How do you know that the hypothetical $8 isn't dependent on the volume?
Have you compared different cloners' agreements?  Do you *KNOW* that
Joe's Computers doesn't pay $12/CPU when Compaq can get it for $6/CPU?

And I doubt you'll see very many cloners shipping only 75% MS-DOS/Windows
systems, regardless of that software's technical merits.

> Now, the people who buy those 25k machines/year from Cloner A are
> going to have to pay that MS royalty in the cost of the machine, even
> though there are no MS products in it.  THIS IS AN ARTIFICIAL PRICE
> BARRIER TO MARKET ENTRY BY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS, WHICH ONLY MS CAN
> 'FORCE' BECAUSE OF THEIR CURRENT MARKET POSITION.

I still have a hard time seeing how Microsoft is "forcing" all those clone
makers to sign contracts -- any more than Dolby is forcing cassette deck
makers to put Dolby on tape decks, or Matsushita is forcing VCR companies
to use VHS instead of Beta.  Oh well -- doesn't seem to be much point in
arguing that any further.

>> Of course none of us know whether the real numbers are anything like $8,
>> $20, 40% or 25%.

> Right, which is why the numbers in my preceding example are totally
> made up.  But the PRINCIPLE is the same; the price difference is NOT
> based on volume, or on any sound reason.

So if you don't know the numbers, how do you *KNOW* it's not based on
volume?  If I start up Tom's PC Clones and Lawnmowers, Inc., can I get
Microsoft to sell me MS-DOS + Windows for $8, too?  Thought not.

> Those are IBM machines and they can do what they want insofar as
> bundling their own stuff.  If Microsoft sold machine, I would grant
> them the same privilege.

So do you think it'd be OK to bundle Word, Excel and Powerpoint with every 
copy of Windows sold, then?  After all, they do sell the OS...

[ \tom haapanen  |  "only auto racing, bullfighting and mountain climbing are ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca |   sports -- all others are only games" -- ernest hemingway ]
[ waterloo engineering software |     "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:50:24 GMT


     Honestly, what do these 'advantages' you've pointed out do for
the average home user who just wants to use power of the new intel
32-bit processers?

In article <1992Dec25.110655.27320@u.washington.edu>,
robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:
>
>Well, I can name lots of reasons...
>
>1) C2 Security - I know lots of places that Security of data on the PC or
>LAN is a MUST.  Can't have someone just walk up to a PC/Node and take a look
>at all the data on it.

     I'm pretty trusting of people I let use my computer, or hook up
to it for that matter.  The only computer I'm going to be hooked up
to will be the other computer in my house, and I don't really need
to keep the files secure from my girlfriend...

>
>2) Cross Platform - Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit in front of either
>a PC, MIPS, Alpha, or almost any other system (Thanks HAL ) and know that
>Windows NT has the ability to run on it?  I know thats a BIG Plus for some of
>the larger mixed - environment workplaces.

     This whole cross-platform thing is a little confusing.  From
what I understand, only the OS is cross platform, and the programs
must all be recompiled in order to run on them.  So, let's say I
have a lot of money invested in NT software for Intel machines.
Then I decide in the future that I want an Alpha machine.  I'll have
to go out and buy all of my software again.  Shouldn't I have an OS
that's designed to take advantage of the special properties of the
hardware instead?  It would end up costing the same, and my OS would
end up being more powerful.
     Of course, if the same software could be used, things would be
much easier and cheaper, but too many abstracting layers would need
to be used in order for the system to be useable.

>
>3) Win32s - What more to say?

     This is more an advantage for DOS/Windows than it is for
Windows NT.  In fact, it almost seems like a disadvantage for NT.

>
>4) Multiuser support - Albeit, not so great as some variants of UN*X, but it's
>a lot better than what OS/2 offers 'out of the box'.

     This has also never been clarified.  The multi-user support
seems more like distributed networking than dumb-terminal support.
So, in order to use the multi-user part of the system, a person
would need at least two computers with a large amount of RAM and HD
space.

>
>etc...
>

OK

In the end, I can't think of *anything* that would cause me to like
NT any more than I like OS/2.  Yes, I have the October Beta, but
it's not loaded up (since it doesn't support Adaptec 1522 SCSI and
my ATI Graphics Vantage.  Besides, it's a bear to get working if
Boot manager is on the Disk).


Timothy Miller
From: linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 2 Jan 93 09:49:26 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>
>>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
>>some NEW Merit!
>>
>>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
>>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
>>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
>>
>>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
>>files before installing DOS 6.0 -

>     Interesting.  What is the problem with that?  If there was a
>similar message that said "Autocad detected.  Due to the size of
>Autocad you may wish to delete your Autocad files before installing
>DOS 6.0", whould that be bad too?

If DOS is advanced enough to detect the presence of potential
disk hoggers (what does it do? Keep a database?) it should
certainly be smart enough to tell if there is room enough.
If it finds too little room, it should just say so, not
indicate anything as a potential problem. It is silly to
give messages like, X detected. If there are many X's which
one would be the problem? If there are no X's then what to
do? No piece of software should be a smartass, let the user
decide what he does and does not need.

Erik
-- 
Erik van Linstee   |   Delft University of Technology   |   I'll be back ... 
----
   We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
   in our holy brains...  (Yello)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:50:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.201454.20862@microsoft.com> bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>Lowell Morrison writes:
>>>*sigh* is anybody forcing people to buy MS DOS at $100 a copy?  
>>>
>>Effectively Yes.  The senario is this, I have a PC (It was given to me
>>by a well meaning relitive, it is loaded with DR-DOS 6.0), I need to run
>>The most wonderful word processor in the world (Word Perfect 5.2, or 
>>some other non-MS windows based word processor), I go out an buy Windows
>>3.1 (I am not stupid so I get it for $79 at Egghead on sale) and this 
>>Wonderful Word Processor.  All of a sudden I find out that Windows 3.1 won't
>>run under my version of DR-DOS, so I go back to Egghead and am forced to pay
>>full price (minus the egghead discount) for DOS.  I ain't happy with
>>Microsoft.
>
>
>I'm confused; perhaps you can help me out of my confusion.
>
>	1. You have DR-DOS6.0, a clone of MSDOS.
>	2. You buy Win3.1, an MS product that was designed to 
>		work with MSDOS. And indeed it does, as you note.
>	3. You find that Win3.1 doesn't work with DR-DOS6.0
>
>Then: 
>	4. You complain to MS, not DR, about the problem.
>
>See my confusion? Doesn't the problem have to do with the fidelity
>of the MSDOS emulation done by DR-DOS? Or am I missing something?
>I'd genuinely like to know...
>
>
>	Bob Atkinson
>	Microsoft (just a random engineer...)

Well, Bob, it has something to do with the large number of trade rag
articles about MS refused to give information to DR that they were giving
to other vendors about how to make their program work with Windows 3.1.
It also has been reported by various and sundry informants, that
"It ain't finished till DR-Dos won't run it" (inrequards to Windows).

For this reason, I feel that if these reports are true (and I know that
Windows 3.1 violates the DPMI standards promilgated by MS from other
reliable sources), I can indeed blame MS.  If Windows Violates
standards, it is Windows problem, not DR's DOS Emulation, their product
follows the standard.  That is it, plain and simple.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 14:46:12 GMT

In article <Bzwwrn.8uM@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>
>  You are a master at raising straw-man issues. Absolutely nobody is
>trying to stop MS from selling its 'wares. 
>The issue is whether MS
>treats its distributors and other sellers fairly and equally and
>uses practices consistent with US law. 
>the concept of 'agreed price'
>becomes somewhat hollow if coercion is involved.

Only the US law is coersive, if it uses _force_ to limit MS from
selling its property as it chooses to whoever chooses to buy it. 

>>A position like yours is not rare, and you are entitled to it, but
>>at least be honset and say that you are against property rights,
>>rather then using charged terms like "predatory practices".
>
>  There you go again. I am not against property rights. I am against
>the premise that they are completely absolute and god-granted.

At the same time you are advocating a God-granted right for 
MS competitors to be treated in what _you_ call "fairly", and you
give yourself a God-granted right to define that concept.

If property rights are not absolute, then they are not absolute
for the competitors as well. It is then appropriate for MS to
use "predatory tactics" ( your favorite phrase ).

>
>>And to argue that the FTC is protecting the software customer when
>>all evidence is the contary, and software prices are keep falling
>>down all the time, is blindness at best.
>
>   I never said it was protecting the customer. I said it was tasked
>to protect the integrity of the marketplace. 

The integrity of the market place is broken once _force_ is 
introduced into it.
 
>Sometimes the long term
>goal that represents may even conflict with the short term advantages
>to customers. One of these is the use of predatory pricing and
>distribution practices to eliminate competition. In the short run
>the customer may benefit but is likely to suffer later when the
>market becomes monopolistic. Perhaps you think MS has lowered its prices
>because they're such neat guys as opposed to having been pushed into it
>by competition - with Borland and Lotus mainly.

All this is a speculation of yours. By now prices are going down for
years, and I dont think they have ever gone up. You want to
penalize a company because of _speculations_, not facts.

>
>   As to blindness - you seem to be deaf to the arguments presented in
>this thread since you respond to most everything by prattling about
>property rights as though they were unquestionable and self-evident.

You are deaf as well. You treat _your_ own notions of fairness 
as absolute.

>-- 
>Jeff Sicherman
>up the net without a .sig


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:51:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <rhoward.725158911@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>moncrg@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Gregory Donald Moncreaff) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec22.234828.0203999@locus.com> lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>>>
>>>Or perhaps, I already own DOS N.n, I have to pony up $50 for an upgrade
>>>that these systems resellers get for $10, gee, I think I just got
>>>gouged.  Again, I ain't happy with Microsoft.  Of course, it is far
>>>cheaper for me to pirate it, but then I am allowing M$ to force me
>>>to become a criminal.  I ain't happy with that state of affairs again.
>>>
>>its probably a lot cheaper for microsoft to ship 1000 copies to one
>>location than 1 copie to each of a thousand locations, therefore its
>>cheaper if you order lots of them. (ever heard of volume discounts??)
>
>So in other words, when I go to Egghead I buy their only copy of
>DOS, then they call Redmond directly and order *1* copy to replace
>it?  Come-on, Egghead probably sells more DOS than many clone makers.
>
>Why can't Egghead get it for $10 a copy and under-cut everyone
>else by selling it for $20?  The point is that the $10 copies
>go to capture a market, the $50 copies go to people that already
>want it.  Sort of how drug pushers work as a matter of fact....

    Egghead is making 100% of its profit on that software.  The
clone-makers aren't using MS-DOS as a profit point - it's a selling
point, certainly, but they don't expect to mark it up and pass that
cost on.  Comparing the two cases is not particularly useful.

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.222017.433@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <BzoCzH.Ds0@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I Miller) writes:
>
>|> enacted.  I'm not really that interested in the breakup of MS, but I
>|> am interested in the contracts that MS signs with PC vendors being
>|> scruitinized, and revised if they are found to be in violation of
>|> the rules that the FTC has set up.
>
>We'll I am interested in the rules that the FTC has set up and some of
>them I have a real problem with.  No federal commission should be able
>to mandate the theft of property, but that is exactly what the FTC has
>done.

     If this is the way you see it, what do you consider the IRS?
Once again, I won't say whether this is right or wrong, just that
the FTC will decide if a law is being broken.  And as a previous
poster replied, the undocumented calls don't seem to be the issue
right now.

>
>|> >Hey, Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anybody clone maker's head and
>|> >force them to sign a contract.  Both parties voluntarily signed contracts
>|> >because they both thought it would benefit them.
>|> >
>|>
>|>      I agree, no guns were involved.  I'm against the nature of the
>|> contracts signed.
>
>Pardon me, but isn't the nature of the contracts signed the business of only
>the people who sign it?  If they both like the contract enough to sign it
>then why would you possibly be against it or even care?

     Yes, but I think after a certain point it is called
racketeering (or is that extortion?).  Note, I'm not calling MS
racketeers, just saying that the contracts they have allegedly
signed with people are very restrictive.

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 24 Dec 1992 08:18 EST  

In article <rhoward.725158911@matd>, rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. 
Howard) writes...

>Why can't Egghead get it for $10 a copy and under-cut everyone
>else by selling it for $20?  The point is that the $10 copies
>go to capture a market, the $50 copies go to people that already
>want it.  Sort of how drug pushers work as a matter of fact....

So maybe Microsoft should be investigated by the DEA instead of the FTC?
:-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 Beta Looks for OS/2!!!!!!!!
Date: 02 Jan 93 12:51:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


> > In article <1993Jan1.133731.2312@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> >>
> >>	All this talk about FUD & Misinformation about OS/2 from Microsoft has
> >>some NEW Merit!
> >>
> >>	I Recently talked to a Beta Tester of DOS 6.0. He Runs OS/2 with 2 Hard
> >>Drives, One FAT, One HPFS. He decided to Install the DOS 6.0 Beta on the FAT
> >>Partition, and got a Message saying, and I paraphrase: 
> >>
> >>- OS/2 Detected! Due to the size of OS/2 you may wish to delete your OS/2 
> >>files before installing DOS 6.0 -

Have your beta tester friend do these things.
Re-read the message he got.  Have your friend read the readme.txt
file.  The context in those instructions is NOT that MS is the evil
empire, trying every underhanded trick in the book.  Until you/your frind
read that, everything you've said is speculation and upbacked information.

(Why can't people just read the D*MN instructions)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:40:45 GMT

|> Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda division on
|> us.  

Unsubstantiated smears like the above are good rhetorical tactics, but
do nothing but muddy the waters.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: pallantj@unvax.union.edu (Joseph C. Pallante)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:16:46 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1h13t8INNj74@neuro.usc.edu>, merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>|> >Well you can kiss American leadership in operating systems out goodbye.
>|> 
>|> How much good software has been placed in the American or world market
>|> by the Japanese?  I can't think of a single package.  Why?

>I'm not talking about the Japanese.  I'm talking about the Russians who are
>world class software developers, and to whom $300 a month is a princly
>salary.  I'm also talking about India which is no slouch either and has
>companies to which you can contract out your programming jobs for much
>cheaper than you can pay Americans to do it.


The day that a couple hundred software writers in Russia or India can
produce an OS like OS/2....  Is the day that BG becomes humble.

It is very true that you can find a lot of VERY good programmers in
these countries...  But you can find 100 times more working at IBM
or MicroSoft.  Plus, you should consider how much it costs to create
an OS...  What was the number for the development of OS/2?  I forget...
Anyway, lets just say it could probably feed all the people in several
of the commonwealth states for a year....  People in these countries,
regardless of which countires, will not write software for free...
They may be cheap, but they don't come free.
 

>And ye gads here in the US we're about to clobber one of our most successful 
>software companies. 

>The U.S. antitrust laws made it impossible for US companies
>to sucessfully unite to face the Japanese and Korean DRAM challange.
>They are also responsible to a large degree for American companies 
>losing the consumer electronics business.

I think it is safe to assume that you havent taken too many political
science courses...  I urge you to read some books by Clyde
Prestowitz (sp?).....  You could learn a LOT about what caused
American companies to lose much of the consumer electronics business.
I assure you, it had NOTHING to do with the antitrust laws...
It had a lot to do with unfair trading practices, and ruthless
market penetration schemes.

>Its true--you can't name a single software package for PC's from Japan.
>Well non-coincidentally, the US software industry was the only one which
>has escaped FTC anti-monopoly regulation.  It was just too new and moved
>to fast for the goverment to clobber.  But I guess the goverment is
>catching up with them.

I wouldnt say that is entirely correct...  IBM has always
been watched by the FTC.  Mainly in the mainframe area, but still,
the FTC has been looking on from the sideline.

Joe







Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc