HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 01 Jan 93 19:17:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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?
     If Microsoft rightly sues another company for copyright violation
or theft of intellectual property, that doesn't make them a bully.
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.
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: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:49:58 GMT

In <64530001@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com> limrcd@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Richard LIM) writes:

><lowell@locus.com> writes:

>| >which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
>| >both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
>| >Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?
>| >
>| 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 asudden 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.

>Yes. And I guess I should sue Microsoft for making Windows 3.1 that
>cannot run on my old CPM86 that I bought in 1980s....

>| rampant.  People are not happy with MS, they only buy MS-DOS because it is
>| effectively the only game in town, and you gotta play and pay through the
>| nose for the priviledge.

>You do have a point there about being the only game in town. Because
>all the other players shot themselves in the foot.

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!

They Cheat! they are bullies.  That is the whole point.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: "Windoze" slow? Naah...Re: pc and mac: was RE: 486 and mac benchmar
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:47 GMT

In article <Truth_Assassin.0r68@qube.OCUnix.On.Ca> Truth_Assassin@qube.OCUnix.On.Ca (Truth Assassin) writes:
>Cbusch@ub.d.umn.edu (chris) Says:

>Well, if you want acceleration, you can adjust the speed setting in
>software. It can go from very slow to very fast. Perhaps you just haven't
>looked in the right place.. As for it's having 1 button, owing as the Mac
>was designed with human interface in mind, and mainly for application
>oriented software rather than the latest game, 1 button makes sense than 2,
>or 3 or more.

Actually, Windows only uses the one button too. The second and third 
buttons are sometimes used optionally in some apps (in other words you
don't have to use them, they're shortcuts). 

But there are times when you do need three buttons. Ever try MacX? 
What makes it so painful to use (besides the low res Apple monitors)
is that the other two "mouse buttons" get put on the keyboard.

>Most major software packages for the Mac have built in help. If you're
>using System 7, and the application is a System 7 application, you have
>such a thing known as bubble help, that will pop up help on various
>commands.

Ah... good old Baboon Help. I must admit its come in useful a couple
times, usually I just switch it off, as do 99.99% of the Mac users 
I've seen.

>News to me. As for your "inexpensive add-ons" how about support. Do they
>actually work? And well, in a way you answered your own question. Base macs
>compared against base P.C.'s.. not base Macs compared against loaded
>P.c.'s.. is it Apple's fault if so and so does not ship certain systems
>with "standard" features such as built in networking, etc.?

The loaded PC will cost less than the comparable basic Mac. 

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
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Could someone explain Win 3.1 Ring architecture?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:26:42 GMT
Summary: Win 3.1 Rings

In article <1992Dec23.223919.26720@microsoft.com>, georgem@microsoft.com (George Moore) writes:
> tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox) writes:
> >
> >And what [Windows] replaces DOS with is actually quite a powerful OS 
> >in its own right.  True, even in Protected Mode (Standard/Enhanced) 
> >all applications run at privilege level 0 (Kernel level), ...
> 
> 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?

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: A thought...
Date: 3 Jan 1993 02:10:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

I've been told that IBM has rights to implement in OS2 all future Microsoft
Windows releases (perhaps even getting source?) as a condition of
their previous deal.

Now, Microsoft is claiming that Windows NT, is just a new 'upgrade'
to Windows 3.1, even calling it Win 3.1 NT.  This is to be able to use
some of Novell's protocols that they licensed for Windows OT (old
technology) in the new Win NT.  Of course Novell is really pissed, because
NT directly competes with their networking products in a way that W.O.T.
doesn't.

So, if MS claims that NT is just another version of regular Windows, then
IBM can come along and tell them to fork over the source, because it's
just a new version of Windows.

I think IBM should pay Novell to shut up about it and drop their suit,
but only after Microsoft officially testifies that WNT is just another
version of Windows.

How velly eeeenteresting!

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: A thought...
Date: 03 Jan 93 08:03:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1i5husINNd92@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>I've been told that IBM has rights to implement in OS2 all future Microsoft
>Windows releases (perhaps even getting source?) as a condition of
>their previous deal.
>
>Now, Microsoft is claiming that Windows NT, is just a new 'upgrade'
>to Windows 3.1, even calling it Win 3.1 NT.  This is to be able to use
>some of Novell's protocols that they licensed for Windows OT (old
>technology) in the new Win NT.  Of course Novell is really pissed, because
>NT directly competes with their networking products in a way that W.O.T.
>doesn't.
>
>So, if MS claims that NT is just another version of regular Windows, then
>IBM can come along and tell them to fork over the source, because it's
>just a new version of Windows.
>
>I think IBM should pay Novell to shut up about it and drop their suit,
>but only after Microsoft officially testifies that WNT is just another
>version of Windows.
>
>How velly eeeenteresting!
>

     IBM has already waived any rights to Windows NT, so this
discussion is probably moot.

			-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.
From: limrcd@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Richard LIM)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:59:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: HP Singapore Notes-Server
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy

<lowell@locus.com> writes:

| >which go on are completely voluntary between buyer and seller.  Obviously
| >both parties are happy about the price or it wouldn't get sold.  If
| >Microsoft and its customers are happy, why interfere with them?
| >
| 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 asudden 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.

Yes. And I guess I should sue Microsoft for making Windows 3.1 that
cannot run on my old CPM86 that I bought in 1980s....

| rampant.  People are not happy with MS, they only buy MS-DOS because it is
| effectively the only game in town, and you gotta play and pay through the
| nose for the priviledge.

You do have a point there about being the only game in town. Because
all the other players shot themselves in the foot.

| To Reiterate, Yep, I am forced to pay the $100 for MS-DOS or some large 
| fraction there of, and the systems mis-handlers pay a 10th of what I have 
| to in obtaining the same product.  At least if I want to stay legal and
| above board.  

That's call volume purchasing. I guess if you went to MS and promise to 
buy 10,000 copies a year, they will sell it to you for the same low
price too! I thought that was what all the giant retailers do!

Regards
Richard Lim     "A conclusion is where you get tired of thinking"
======================================================================
E-mail:  hpsgm2.SGP.HP.COM!limrcd   Snail-mail: Hewlett-Packard S'pore
Tel:     (065)-279-2525                         (APD-ThinFilm SS/EE)
Telnet:        520-2525                         1150 Depot Road
HPDesk:  Richard Lim/HP3200/30                  Singapore 0410.
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 17:11:08 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>Thus, if a process needs a lot of processing time to handle an event, it can
>take it; but if a process doesn't need to do anything (a "background" process
>wouldn't have to do much) in response it a message, it can (and usually does)
>yield control almost IMMEDIATELY to the next process that has high-priority
>messages pending.  In a sense, this is a form of self-imposed priority-based
>scheduling.

YES!  BUT!  That works for well behaved well written Windows applications.
However, when you try doing background compiles of large application source
codes (200,000+ lines of C) then the lack of dynamic priority scheduling
becomes particularly evident.  I am informed this is true largely of apps
running in a DOS box and not of regular Windows apps.  However, working as
a developer of cross system applications (OS/2 2.1, SCO UNIX, 386BSD-0.1,
and maybe DOS/Win32s), the lack of preemptive dynamic process scheduling
seems particularly acute.  As I understand it I have to assign percentage
processor time to my background dos box and it doesn't waiver much from my
fixed percentage assignment.
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: 31 Dec 1992 14:14:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1hr8q8INN5aa@cae.cad.gatech.edu> chris@cad.gatech.edu  
(Chris McClellen) writes:
> 
> Twould seem that microsoft has unleashed their net.propoganda  
division on
> us.  

Ah, I see.  A bunch of people jump all over Microsoft, and
when a Microsoft employee actually replies it's propoganda.
I get it.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: FTC after Microsoft???
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:16:33 GMT

Enclosed is an article from the clarinet newsgroup that may be of interest.
Seems like MS has just pissed off too many for too long.

Also of interest to this group.  The Journal American (Redmond, WA) this
morning says that Novell has purchased USL (Unix Systems Labs).  Maybe the
unwashed masses will find out what a real operating system looks like after
all.

> Newsgroups: clari.nb.govt,clari.nb.top,biz.clarinet.sample
> Subject:  ****Magazine Reports FTC Will Move Against Microsoft 12/18/92
> Keywords: Bureau-DEN
> Date: 18 Dec 92 20:54:04 GMT
> Message-ID: <NB921218.24@clarinet.com>
> Approved: cn@clarinet.com
> Lines: 38
> To: ray@camco.Celestial.COM
> Status: O

REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1992 DEC 18 (NB) -- Business Week
magazine, in its December 28th issue, says FTC investigators have 
concluded that the software company has engaged in anticompetitive 
actions. The magazine also reports that the investigators are 
preparing recommendations as to how to proceed against the company.

According to Business Week, the recommendations being prepared by 
the agency's investigators could include breaking up the company, 
altering the way its software is sold to computer makers, or 
isolating the divisions from each other. The latter move, if
adopted, would effectively have each division operating as a 
separate entity.

Business Week says the investigators focused on Microsoft's
"aggressive tactics" including the way it licenses its software to 
computer makers. The company reportedly has 95 percent of the 
operating systems market for personal computers powered by Intel 
microprocessors. The magazine also claims that the report alleges 
that Microsoft has unfairly used its dominance to gain an edge in 
development of such software applications as word processing 
programs and spreadsheets.

Rival software companies have complained publicly and apparently to
the Federal Trade Commission that Microsoft uses "predatory
practices" in selling its operating systems. The operating system is
the software which provides basic functions such as file management,
and is the foundation from which applications such as word
processing programs run. Allegations have also been made that
Microsoft dumped software at prices designed to drive other
companies from the market.

When contacted by Newsbytes late Thursday, a Microsoft spokesperson
would only say "No comment."

(Jim Mallory/19921218/Press contact: Christine Summerson, Business 
Week, 212-512-2882)


-- 
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: 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 04:45:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

(Kuusisto Pasi Petri,,,SIG,64380) writes:
>> 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?

Because it would be much harder to tell that a "she" was having an orgasm on
stage.  The original poster said that the person actually had an orgasm,
and that would be almost impossible to tell with a woman, whereas a man
creaming his pants on stage would be more obvious.

If the original poster had said that they acted like they had an orgasm,
then it would have been unreasonable to assume a man, but the original
poster claimed that the person actually had an orgasm.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:48:38 GMT

In article <1hn6pkINNg5u@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.175117.12752@pcatsc.UUCP> palmer@pcatsc.UUCP  
>(Doug Palmer) writes:
>> You are *completely* missing the point. It's not the hardware  
>vendors
>> who are adversely affected by MicroSoft's predatory practices, but  
>the
>> competitor OS vendors. In effect, when MicroSoft enters into an  
>agreement
>> to tie royalty payments to units sold, they are forcing the  
>hardware
>> vendor to add the price of DOS/Windows to any other bundled  
>operating
>> system. This is an "unfair" practice in re the OS vendor, not the
>> hardware vendor. They have effectively increased the cost of all  
>other
>> operating systems. That's illegal.
>> 
>
>The various parts of this paragraph don't hold together. First
>off, many companies, not just Microsoft, provide volume discounts,
>which is what I assume you mean by "tie royalty payments to
>units sold."  (Or are you somehow saying that Microsoft should
>NOT charge for every unit sold?)  I'm sure Goodyear gives
>Ford a discount for buying millions of tires, and that Ford
>can pay less for tires by putting Goodyear's on all their cars
>rather than Goodyear's on some, Michelen's on others, and Dunlop's
>on yet others, since Goodyear will give a far bigger discount if
>Ford buys all (rather than 25%) of their tires from Goodyear.  
>(Warning to the literal minded: this is a hypothetical example.
>I don't know if Ford actually uses Goodyear.)
>
>Second, you keep using the word "forces."  Microsoft is not
>"forcing" anyone to bundle DOS/Windows. They are just giving them
>bigger discounts if they do.  And, in a market where almost
>everyone is asking for Windows and DOS, it is probably cheaper
>for a hardware company to put DOS/Windows on every machine
>(and load every machine from the same tape) than to customize
>every machine someone orders.
>

  There are two problems with your analysis, as I know the facts:

1.  As I understand it, MS wants the vendors to pay based upon total
units sold, not the number of units sold with DOS or Windows on it.
That sounds to me more like paying for the right to sell it than it
does purchasing and reselling the product. That constitutes a very
fine line between commerce and extortion.

2.  MS's scenario virtually prevents the machine seller from bundling
some other OS without taking a financial hit on the transaction. In
effect, it is paying the vendor to not use the competitors product
(because of the higher volumes and discounts associated with the
agreement). That is a deliberate restraint of trade, not honest competition.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: mike-b@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Michael Bishop)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:31:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy

> 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.

This is a very strange use of the word "force".  Did Microsoft hold
these companies at gunpoint and say:  "Put our OS on every computer you
sell, or else."  These companies agreed by their own volition to enter
into an agreement with Microsoft.  The only "force" we are going to see
in this whole affair is when the U.S.  Government dismantles a damned
successful company - that's what this is all about - the hatred of the 
successful by the envious.

Michael Bishop
Hewlett-Packard Company
Internet: mike-b@fc.hp.com
CompuServe: 71552,1341

If Bill Gates is the Ellis Wyatt of the computer industry, then who
is John Galt?
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy