HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 20:21:31 GMT

In <1993Jan01.191757.10168@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.173757.926@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>>In <1992Dec29.021003.4037@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec26.204958.11455@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> NO-NO-NO It is not that they (the competitors) shot themselves in the foot.
>>>|> Microsoft shot them.  That is why the FTC is getting into the act!
>>>|> 
>>
>>>Stand by for some heavy-duty accusations....
>>
>>>|> They Cheat! 
>>
>>>Hmmmnn....when I use the word "cheat" I mean either that you don't deliver
>>>what you promised to or that you steal something from me.  When has Microsoft
>>>done either one?
>>
>>When they use the power of thier legal department to overpower smaller
>>companies and prevent them from competing with MS.

>     Evidence, please.  I've only seen Microsoft on the receiving
>end of this kind of litigation.


>>>|> they are bullies.  That is the whole point.
>>
>>>Hmmmnnn...when I use the word "bully" I mean someone who uses physical force
>>>to try and get his/her way.  When has Microsoft used physical force
>>>to get their way?
>>
>>See my previous post RE: "try that and we will sue you out of existance."
>>If that is not being a "bully" I don't know what is.

>     I read your post, and it sounded like what you were doing was
>of questionable legality.  If your company was so secure in what
>it was doing, why didn't it go to court?

Phil, go look at the size of Building 8.  Now go inside and count the number
of lawyers in there.  Microport had a total of 22 people in the entire
company - no lawyers.  The lawyer we contacted told us the legal costs to
fight MS would be in the range of tens of millions of dollars.  Our total
capitalization was only 1.5 million.  Now you tell me how we could fight a
bully that big!
(For those of you that do not live in Redmond, Building 8 use to be
Corporate headquarters buildin, but now is used to house the legal staff.
It is a vary large building.)

>     If Microsoft rightly sues another company for copyright violation
>or theft of intellectual property, that doesn't make them a bully.

I have no problem when they "rightly" sue, but they have the POWER to bury
anyone that gets in the way.

>It makes them willing to stand up to criminals.

>				-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.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Notice! OS2 will Execute Win3 programs Without having to have Win
Date: 3 Jan 1993 14:23:18 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>The only bad thing about the way Windows programs multitask is that the
>task-switching is not pre-emptive.  It is cooperative.  

One other really bad feature of MS-Windows multitasking is that there 
is no concept of dynamic priority based scheduling.  As a consequence 
background processes get a fixed percentage of cpu whether or not any
other process (forground process) is using cpu at all.  At least that
is the way the system seems to behave whenever I have used it.  OS/2's
pre-emtive PRIORITY DRIVEN scheduler allows dynamic division of cpu's
resources among multiple processes.
From: rkeel@fnugget.intel.com (William R Keel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FTC after Microsoft???
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:06:17 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <1992Dec29.180650.25153@ra.msstate.edu> cee1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Evans) writes:
>Please, over 200 posts have been on this on a previous thread. Let's wait
>and just see what happens. IMHO, businesses unless breaking the law like
>forcing me or you to buy something, or espionage, or treason, ad nausea--
>should be able to run their business without government interference. Why
>penalize those who do well. So what if Microsoft has a large share of OS's

No...penalize those who try to get into a position where they can take
advantage of you and me.

>and apps.... they've done well. If smaller companies cannot make it too bad.

If Microsoft INTENTIONALLY drives competition out of the market.  It'll be
too bad for the consumer!

>No one forces you to buy Microsoft products. Buy something else. I think it,

Not yet...although at $200 a pop, you might think we are.



This economy is based on a competitive market place.  If there is little        
competition, consumers get screwed and companies become gluttonous and
unresponsive to the needs of the people and the market.  Case in point: IBM

I am NOT here to bash Microsoft - I love and use a majority of their products
however, if they INTENTIONALLY drive a plan to push out competition and 
create barriers of entry into the market, something should be done.
It's unhealthy for the Software industry and it would hurt you and me.

The intentions of a company may sway my feelings about MS, but the US
Govt doesn't always take that into as much consideration.  Look at AT&T.
The poor slobs weren't engaging in Monopolistic activities, it's just that
no one could enter the market.  The govt broke it up 'cause AT&T was
in a position to take advantage of the consumers.  Not only in unfair,
high prices but in a lack of responsiveness and growth.  Seriously,
how long would AT&T have taken to install fiber optics?  Surely not
because they would loose customers if they didn't have high quality
communications...loose customers to whom?  

If you read only 1 thing in this message, read this:
I will bet that Microsoft could make the claim that by making MS-DOS
and Windows a standard for computers, they are actually making the
software industry more competitive, and, I think, doing us all a 
benefit.

Reed

internet: rkeel@fnugget.intel.com                           Huh?
Newsgroups: 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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:21:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.202131.24166@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:

|> I have no problem when they "rightly" sue, but they have the POWER to bury
|> anyone that gets in the way.

One of the reasons they have the power to bury people is that our legal system
is too large, too complex, and too inequitable.  Moreover, the laws on the
books are both unjust and vaguly written--stuffed with Orwellian phrases like
"unfair," "anticompetative" etc. which have no real meaning and therefore
can be twisted into applying to about any sitation if you can afford enough
twisty lawyers.

Our system has just grown to the point that it is choaking itself and we
really can't go on this way.
Newsgroups: 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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:16:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.202131.24166@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:

|> Phil, go look at the size of Building 8.  Now go inside and count the number
|> of lawyers in there.  Microport had a total of 22 people in the entire
|> company - no lawyers.  The lawyer we contacted told us the legal costs to
|> fight MS would be in the range of tens of millions of dollars.  Our total
|> capitalization was only 1.5 million.  Now you tell me how we could fight a
|> bully that big!
|> (For those of you that do not live in Redmond, Building 8 use to be
|> Corporate headquarters buildin, but now is used to house the legal staff.
|> It is a vary large building.)

Isn't it sad that Microsoft needs to hire a whole building full of lawyers?
I'll bet that most of them came on because of the Apple "GUI war" lawsuit.
They'll have no end of work trying to fend off the FTC.

Don't you wish that litigation wasn't a business technique in America?

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: cee1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Evans)
Subject: Re: FTC after Microsoft???
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:06:50 GMT

Please, over 200 posts have been on this on a previous thread. Let's wait
and just see what happens. IMHO, businesses unless breaking the law like
forcing me or you to buy something, or espionage, or treason, ad nausea--
should be able to run their business without government interference. Why
penalize those who do well. So what if Microsoft has a large share of OS's
and apps.... they've done well. If smaller companies cannot make it too bad.
No one forces you to buy Microsoft products. Buy something else. I think it,
myself, that it is quite cheezy that Microsoft does not publish various
windows commands for others to use to make applications. But, rememeber,
Microsoft wrote it and did all the work, if I were the president of Microsoft,
Bill Gates, or Bill the Cat, I DON'T have to disclose anything I don't want
to competitors, and I should not have to, or be coerced by our government to
do so. The government rats in everyones business and every business.
If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. I admire Microsoft for their
such-quick rise in sales and market leadership. It's just jealously on the part
of those who cannot compete... Get out of our way US Goernment.

--

      Charles E. Evans | This nation is in decay because we are more 
   cee1@ra.msstate.edu |  concerned with RIGHTS and LAWS instead of
cevans@abe.msstate.edu |             RIGHTS and WRONGS.
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 3 Jan 1993 04:40:20 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

Randall A Helzerman writes:
>|> They Cheat! 
>
>Hmmmnn....when I use the word "cheat" I mean either that you don't deliver
>what you promised to or that you steal something from me.  When has Microsoft
>done either one?

How about the way Microsoft "acquired" technology from Micrographx, which just
happened to be when Micrographx was about to go public, and couldn't afford
the bad publicity that would follow if they sued Microsoft?  This is
described starting on page 390 of "Hard Drive."  If it is true, it fits
my definition of cheating.

>
>|> they are bullies.  That is the whole point.
>
>Hmmmnnn...when I use the word "bully" I mean someone who uses physical force
>to try and get his/her way.  When has Microsoft used physical force
>to get their way?
>
>The word "bully" can much more accuratly be applied to the FTC.  They are
>trying to use physical force to make Bill Gates, at the gunpoint of the
>police, do what they want him to do.

How about when Microsoft threatened Ashton-Tate with lawsuits to get them
(Ashton-Tate) to not work with Novell on an SQL server?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:48:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


> > The problem here isn't that the hardware vendors "typically don't want
> > to buy from anyone but Microsoft." It's that MicroSoft enters into 
> > agreements which force the vendor to charge more to people who request
> >                  ^^^^^
> > competetors products than those products would normally cost.
> 

I really dislike how most hardware vendors FORCE me to use an Intel
processor instead of Cyrix or AMD.  They don't even offer the other
processors as an option.  I mean, if these hardware vendors made
the processors, I'd understand, but they seem to have a monopolistic
agreement with Intel as their only supplier.

petesk@microsoft.com
Please note the cynicism in the above post.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:37:57 GMT

In <1992Dec29.021003.4037@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec26.204958.11455@Celestial.COM>, ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
>|> 
>|> NO-NO-NO It is not that they (the competitors) shot themselves in the foot.
>|> Microsoft shot them.  That is why the FTC is getting into the act!
>|> 

>Stand by for some heavy-duty accusations....

>|> They Cheat! 

>Hmmmnn....when I use the word "cheat" I mean either that you don't deliver
>what you promised to or that you steal something from me.  When has Microsoft
>done either one?

When they use the power of thier legal department to overpower smaller
companies and prevent them from competing with MS.
>|> they are bullies.  That is the whole point.

>Hmmmnnn...when I use the word "bully" I mean someone who uses physical force
>to try and get his/her way.  When has Microsoft used physical force
>to get their way?

See my previous post RE: "try that and we will sue you out of existance."
If that is not being a "bully" I don't know what is.

>The word "bully" can much more accuratly be applied to the FTC.  They are
>trying to use physical force to make Bill Gates, at the gunpoint of the
>police, do what they want him to do.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 20:13:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <23DEC199212080445@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>  
scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
> Maybe up until Win 3.0 companies figured that if the customer  
wanted a 
> computer with a Macintosh interface, then the customer would buy a 
> Macintosh ;-)  And please identify any type of work which  
_requires_ 
> Windows 3.0 to accomplish.

Please define "requires."  If you want to get picky, most of the
work done on computers does not REQUIRE a computer; computers
just make the work easier and faster.  For example, you can
type letters and reports on a typewriter, keep databases on 
index cards, and so forth. (This is certainly possible, since
we did this for years before computers became common.)  

What work REQUIRES Windows?  Very little. What work is made
easier and quicker by Windows?  Lots.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: pk64380@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Kuusisto Pasi Petri,,,SIG,64380)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 2 Jan 93 13:41:52 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Tampere, Dep. of Computer Science ,Finland
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaarne.cs.tut.fi
Originator: pk64380@kaarne.cs.tut.fi

From article <1i41ibINN78f@shelley.u.washington.edu>, by tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
> tpurves@sygnus.uucp (Timothy Purves) writes:
>>The FTC should just go and disolve themselfs. Look what happended to AT&T...
>>it the best thing that could have happened for AT&T. I have been in meetings,
>>where the spokesperson was literly having  orgasms on the stage, talking about
>>what they were going to do, and what they could now get away with!.
> 
> You actually saw an AT&T spokesman have an orgasm on a stage?  I would expect
> that the speaker would have noticed that he was getting an erection and would
                                                              ^^^^^^^

> have left in embarrasement before actually ejaculating in front of a bunch
> of people.  Was he able to have this orgasm entirely on the basis of his
> talk, or did he have to rub against the podium?  Was there much reaction
> from the audience?  (I'm asking all these questions because someone literally
> having an orgasm in these circumatances is so unusual, I'm curious).

   You sure the spokesPERSON was a "he"? How come? Where's the evidence?

> --Tim Smith

-zi

--
"Oh well, this group's gone apeshit anyway ..."
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Could someone explain Win 3.1 Ring architecture?
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:05:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan3.050550.1032
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Dec31.182642.9468@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.223919.26720@microsoft.com>, georgem@microsoft.com (George Moore) writes:
>> 
>> Correction.  As of Windows 3.1, all applications, including the shell, 
>> GDI.DLL, and USER.DLL run in Ring 3.  Only the p-mode kernel runs 
>> in Ring 0.
>
>	I've seen references to Rings and what runs where before.  Could someone
>enlighten me (and the rest of us) as to the architecture of this?

"Ring" is Microsoft's quickee-one-syllable word for "Privilege Level."

In Protected Mode, which is available on all Intel 80x86 processors from the
80286 on, there are four different Privilege Levels at which any task may
run.  These privilege levels are given the incredibly insightful and meaning-
ful names of "Privilege Level 0", "Privilege Level 1", Privilege Level 2",
and "Privilege Level 3".

PL 0 (which Microsoft likes to call "Ring 0") is the equivalent of Supervisor
Mode on the Motorola 680x0 or the IBM 360/370.  Only at Privilege Level 0
can you load values into those registers which determine how memory is mapped.
(The GDT Register, for instance, determines the base physical address of the
Global Descriptor Table, which contains base addresses and sizes for every
segment in Windows' memory space.  This is one register you don't want to
have changed except by the Most Privileged of programs, such as the O/S
Kernel.)

All other Privilege Levels are less privileged than those with lower numbers,
with PL 3 ("Ring 3") being the least privileged Privilege Level of all.  By
"less privileged", I mean that a task running at Privilege Level 1 could
write data into a memory data segment that was marked as Privilege Level 2,
but a task running at Privilege Level 2 could *not* write data into a memory
data segment that was marked as Privilege Level 1.

Prior to Windows 3.1, all tasks under Windows ran at Privilege Level 0,
rendering the system susceptible to software that decided to Take Over The
World.  As of Windows 3.1 (according to our friendly neighborhood Microsoft
representative quoted above), Hitler-esque software would be curtailed by
running instead under Privilege Level 3.

-- 
Roger *M.* Wilcox   (aka Jeff Boeing)
tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, aleph null bottles of beer, ...
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: "Windoze" slow? Naah...Re: pc and mac: was RE: 486 and mac benchmar
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:34:31 GMT

In article <Bzo8Jz.2vx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>As for Mac hardware being superior to clones, why do I see so many
>broken Macs? The mouse controllers on maybe 20% of our Si's have 
>gone crazy. (The machines aren't exactly unusable but they do things
>like "press" and "let go" the mouse button when you don't want it 
>to. The menus flash on and off and on and off... The machines are 
>just over a year old.) I can't even count the number of Mac Pluses 
>with burned out video or bad power supplies I've seen. No, mac 
>hardware is pretty cheap and manufactured in Taiwan just like the 
>clones. And just like the clones, it gets assembled in the states.
>So whats the difference?
>
>Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala

You know, my experience has been the same and I must say that even
though I don't like the Mac, I always assumed the extra cost bought you,
if little else, a well-made (i.e., reliable) piece of hardware.  Yet it
surprises me just how many of my colleague's machines (we're a largely
Macked-up campus; there are some PC holdouts, though) break down with a
surprising regularity.  The most egregious case, from back when Apple
still had the 90-day-only warranty: friend/colleague buys new Mac SE;
nine months later, the hard drive fails, she pays $550 (!) at the
authorized dealer for a replacement.  I later read in InfoWorld of the
troubles Apple was having with hd failure rates (bad batch from supplier
was the claim by Apple) -- yet the supplier had given Apple a TWO YEAR
warranty on the driver.  You'd think from a customer relations point of
view they'd have gone through the trouble of replacing the dirve (labor
only fee, perhaps?) and swapped the unit for a new one from their
supplier, but, no, that's not the Mac way.

I get much better service (anda more reliable machine!) from my clone
maker!

jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: bjorn@darmok.uoregon.edu (Bjorn S. Fjeld Pettersen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:16:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: pith.1hj04tINNq9l
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line31.uoregon.edu

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?

Kanji ?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy