HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:02:37 GMT

In <1992Dec29.015526.3909@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec27.191705.7069@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wardell@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>|> 	Let's go with your logic and say that Standard Oil was not
>|> a monopoly.  Let's say it existed today and only controlled 60% of the
>|> market.  60% of a multitrillion dollar market is frightening.  

>What's so frightening about that?  As long as no one is forcing people
>at gunpoint to buy their products, they could be put out of business
>overnight by their customers.  

You talk like it makes a difference whether the 'gun' is loaded with
lawyers and rules by government or whether it is loaded with money by
someone having sufficient economic power to 'clout' the market.  It
doesn't. 

>|> 	Let's change the situation to be more like the Microsoft situation,
>|> let's say that not only did Standard Oil control 60% of the market but
>|> they also made all the drilling equipment that could be had.

>If they started charging outragious prices for drilling equiptment then 
>someone else would start making drilling equiptment and get a piece of the
>action.  The only way that I can imagine that Standard Oil could possibly
>have all of the drilling equiptment is for them to produce it cheaper than
>anyone else could, in which case who cares, or for them to use guns, either
>theirs or the goverments, to stop any competitors, in which case we've got
>a problem.

Then the problem is with your imagination.  I'd suggest a few more of
those economics courses of which you speak with such derision.
Perhaps then you'll have some understanding of how all this works. 

>|>  While
>|> standard oil did not have  a virtual lock, controlling more than half
>|> of the largest industry on the planet (larger than the car industry, larger
>|> than anything) is frightening.

>As long as you're dealings with that company are completely voluntary
>then why are you scared?

Well, gee, then the dealings between companies and the FTC are
voluntary, too.  The only difference is the FORM of coersion, not the
fact that it is present or not.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:09:35 GMT

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.

Let me get this straight--Microsoft is offering really good deals to 
hardware vendors.  Those deals are so good, that hardware vendors don't
typically don't want to buy from anyone but Microsoft.  The FTC would be
perfectly happy if Microsoft was offering _bad_ deals to hardware vendors.

In other words, good deals, BAD.
                 bad deals, GOOD.

I think I understand now.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: How programs get DPMI memory (was Re: FCC (sic))
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
	<1992Dec24.222133.10992@tc.cornell.edu>
	<1992Dec25.102400.13417@donau.et.tudelft.nl>
	<1992Dec25.163338.29576@tc.cornell.edu>
	<1992Dec25.181732.15997@donau.et.tudelft.nl>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:06:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.181732.15997@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:

>   >How about the 640k limit and how to overcome it ? Need not the 
>   >programmer know about extended/expanded memory, DPMI/VCPI interfaces ?
>
>   The 640k limit is of no concern. When you write an app. and you
>   need memory, you request it and check if you got it. You do not

Programmers must be painfully aware of the memory managers that serve
them.  (Ask someone who programs Windows.)  With software standards
like EMS, XMS, and DPMI, the memory the program gets comes from a
place as foreign to his memory map as blocks from disk.  This means
that, unless the program so instructs the memory manager, he may not
be able to address that memory.  It's not automatic.

>   No, a programmer needn't know about DPMI/VCPI interfaces. If he
>   wants memory, he requests it, he does not generally care where it
>   comes from. The DPMI/VCPI interface should be hidden from him,
>   unless of course he is writing his own memory management, but
>   I can't think of a reason why an application should need that.

What DOS programming language or environment allows a program to wade
about in EMS/XMS/DPMI in the same way as conventional memory, without
any special knowledge or treatment?  Only high-level, interpreted
languages, as far as I know.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:39:54 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1992Dec22.180708.1169@spang.Camosun.BC.CA>, dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
: |> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: |> [....]
: |> : We need fear Microsoft becomming a monopoly no more than we needed to
: |> : fear Standard Oil.  History clearly shows that the free market was
: |> : working to reduce Standard Oil's market share.  And if we don't use the
: |> : FTC as a club to beat Microsoft into the ground, history will again show
: |> : that the free market in computer software will work fine too.
: |> 
: |> Ah the great god of the free market. Tell me, does the free market
: |> help to provide medical care for the entire population of the US?
: 
: This is getting off of the subject, but with the Federal Goverment paying
: for over 60% of the health care, we don't have a free market in
: medical care now.  

I don't think that's what I said. The fact is that your free market
system fails to provide some 25% of your population with any medical
care whatsoever.
: 
: |> Does
: |> the free market - so vigorously espoused by the IMF and the World Bank
: |> - help to keep third world countries out of debt and to feed their
: |> populations? I read this morning that the police in the Ukraine cannot
: |> even drive to most crime scenes because under the fabulous free market
: |> system they don't have the gas to do so.
: 
: I'm afraid that the Ukraine doesn't have a free market in policemen
either. :-)

Again you evade the point. Many third world countries are crippled by
staggering debts, and they cannot feed their populations because the
IMF and World Bank insist on their economies confoirming the the
great god of the free market.

: 
: |> The free market system is another attempt by mankind to regulate
: |> affairs. It is not cast in stone, it is not holy write - and it
: |> doesn't work.
: 
: It doesn't provide Utopia, but that's not one of the options.  Are you saying
: that the Ukraine goverment, which can't even run a police department, should
: run their economy too?  :-)

I'm saying that the Thatcher-Reagan era has hijacked the political and
economic arena and elevated the 'free market' to the status of an
axiomatically 'good' thing. My question is what is all this created
wealth *for* if you cant' feed your people or provide them with health care?

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11406 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3616
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:09:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i3t4kINN4fe
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>From a programmer's point of view there is no real separation between 
>applications & system software. Almost every application involve
>some interaction with the system or system calls. This separation 
>exists only in the mind of the FTC.

What is your definition of "system software"?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Be more creative than the FTC!
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:00:54 GMT

helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: In article <1992Dec21.233918.14782@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu>, rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
: |> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
: |> 
: |> >Why don't Novel, Lotus, et al, find a more creative solution to their problem
: |> >than just using the FTC as a club against Microsoft?  Here are some better
: |> >alternatives:
: |> 
: |> Did you whine like this when MCI forced the government to break up 
: |> AT&T?
: 
: AT&T was only a monopoly because the goverment wouldn't allow other companies
: to compete with it.  In fact, I challenge you to name a single monopoly
: which wasn't a monopoly because a goverment outlawed competition with it.
: Name one which was a monopoly in America before the antitrust laws came in.
: You can even name companies in countries which don't have antitrust laws.

Standard Oil anyone?
--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Mic
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:48:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.000410.286@rose.com>, robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
|> 
|> Date Entered: 12-29-92 18:54
|> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) wrote
|> in <1992Dec28.232207.1612@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
|> 
|> H(> Please try again:  Can you name a real, genuine, monopoly in _any_ 
|> country 
|> H(> at _any_ time (before or after antitrust legislation or in a country without 
|> H(> antitrust legislation) that wasn't created by a government?  You can't
|> H(> do it because there never has been such a beast.  Markets which the goverment
|> H(> stays out of are very harsh on monopolies.
|> 
|> This is off topic, but to name one that is damn close to a monopoly, 
|> try the DuBeers Diamond Cartel.  Another that came very close was INCO 
|> due to the large quantity of nickel in Sudbury, ON.  There have also 
|> been national monopolies, such as silk in China in the early middle 
|> ages, which were NOT created by government, but permitted to 
|> continue, or actively supported, by the government AFTER their 
|> creation.  Lets DROP this side-issue.

Congratulations!  Bob Heuman wins the prize for being the first contestent
to identify DuBeers Diamond as being a true example of a monopolistic-style
organization which actually succeeds in keeping the price of something
artificially high.  Without DuBeers, the diamond market would collapse.

However, cheap diamonds just wouldn't be a special, and would hurt millions
of poor South Africans.
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: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:16:44 GMT

In article <C073ME.D5I@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
|> >The reason Microsoft is still around is good business, plain and simple.
|> 
|>   You don't read very carefully.

Wait a minute!  Just because I don't agree with the post I'm replying to
doesn't mean that I didn't read it carefully!  

|> I agree that the reason that they are
|> around and doing well is the way the company is run. But the reason that
|> they are the size they are and bestride the market to the extent that 
|> they do is that they were the sole source for a virtually essential
|> component of all he microcomputer systems being sold, and one with a very
|> low per unit distribution cost and essentially no need for marketing
|> (because of its essential and often built-in nature). Plenty of companies
|> can be well run but without a blockbuster product that the market *needs*
|> they wouldn't succeed as MS has done.

I've carefully read the above, and I see where you're comming from, but 
it won't wash because you can think of lots of counter examples. 
Digital research was the sole supplier of CP/M--a "virtually essential
component" of all 8080 systems being sold.  Why didn't Digital Research
grow to be as big as Microsoft?
From: hilmera@storm.CS.ORST.EDU (Andrew Hilmer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to 'support' OS/2?
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:24:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: storm.cs.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec28.105039.6803@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucgadkw@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk) writes:
>Yes, Microsoft Word 5.5 for DOS also runs under OS/2 2.0 (and under
>earlier versions, back to 1.0).  The only difference I can detect
>is that the "File" menu choice for dropping down to the operating system
>says "DOS" and "OS/2" respectively when running under the different
>systems.

I suppose that it is too much to hope that W5.5 would support HPFS
filenames.  I would rather hunt around and buy a used copy of Word
than blow two month's rent on Describe... and I am hoping for a
perfect solution.  Rotsa Ruck, eh?

andy
-- 
Andrew Hilmer -- The Truth is the Truth even if you choose to ignore it
Solipsism sucks! It's bad, I say, evilevil.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:02:36 GMT

In article <Bzn3M2.IvJ@csfb1.fir.fbc.com>, jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock) writes:
|> 
|> I get the impression that you are one of those people who have elevated
|> the free market to the status of an absolute moral value. 

I'm glad you want to talk about absolute moral value, because it is
absolutely morally WRONG for the FTC to steal Microsoft's trade secrets.

It doesn't matter that it is legal.  Theft doesn't become morally right
when a law is passed which allows it.

It doesn't matter that its the goverment is doing it.  Theft doesn't become
morally right when the goverment does it.

It doesn't matter if "we, the people" vote on it.  Theft doesn't become
morally right just because the majority votes for it.

|> We, as a people, acting through our government, have decided that this
|> is unacceptable, and that we will prevent it by interfering with the
|> free market system. 

Do you really want to live in a country where We, the people, can all 
gang up on you, a person, and steal from you?  Because that's exactly
what's happening to Microsoft. 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:22:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.182937.2539@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu> rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard Warner) writes:
>
>Ignorance is bliss?  Who cares if they know what I do (I do care but
>that is irrelevant).  Should I be forced to pay for something even if
>I do not want it?  Open up your eyes and read.  This is probably the
>10th post in this thread that has pointed out this problem - MS's
>licensing agreement with vendors forces a situation where every box
>must have an MS-DOS license EVEN IF MS-DOS is NEVER loaded on the 
>system.
>

Let's put this another way, Richard.  Have you noticed how much more
expensive "unbundled" systems are than bundled systems?  There's a reason
for it: that MS-DOS license that gets stuck on every machine generates
enough volume to lower the cost of the system.  If that license were not
accepted by vendors, I garner, the vendors wouldn't move near as much
inventory--nor will the price per system be as low.

Are you paying for it?  Well, sort of.  But if it weren't there, you'd
be paying more.  

Joe
My opinions.


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:50:00 GMT

In article <rhoward.724964340@matd>, rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>  
> Others have (IMHO) written better OS's.  DRI's DR-DOS 6.0 is
> better than MS-DOS 5.0
>  
> The problem is that I cannot call my local clone vendor and
> get a PC with DR-DOS installed.  Why?  Because MS has used
> their enormous market presence to, in effect, force that
> PC maker to install MS-DOS on *all* PCs they make.  Even
> if they don't send out my PC with MS-DOS on it, MS gets the
> licensing fee anyway.  So if I *really* want DR-DOS, it costs
> me money (to go and purchase it), and time (because I have to
> install it over MS-DOS).  DR-DOS had better be *damn* better for
> most people to bother with that....

First, my local clone dealer, or at least one of the larger
(not counting Zeos or Northgate) ones in the Twin Cities
pre-installs DR-DOS. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the
MS OEM contracts have never been exclusionary, i.e. they
don't prevent you from adding DR-DOS, or OS/2, etc to a
machine.

On the otherhand, I've had problems (albeit minor problems)
with DR-DOS. If I was a clone manufacturer operating on a
verrrrry thin profit margin, I would need a real good reason
to use an OS that might increase my support costs even a
little bit.  BTW, the numbers I've heard tossed around for a
large vendor licensing DOS are fairly reasonable (in the $10
- $15 range) given that MS isn't providing the
documentation.  Does anyone know what kind of deal DR is
offering OEMs on licensing DR-DOS?


> You cite IBM as an example..yet they are having a hard time
> getting clone makers to pre-install OS/2...for just those
> reasons.

Or maybe the market demand for OS/2 isn't high enough to
take on the  additional support costs.  Or given that most
people I know who have purchased clones go with 2MB or 4MB
of memory, do you as a OEM want to price your machine $150
higher than the rest because you bundle OS/2 and need 8MB? 

--rick

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Hoffbeck               INTERNET: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu |
| Colon Cancer Control Study     ATT     : (612) 627-4151         |
| University of Minnesota        CIS     : 72406,521              |
| Minneapolis, MN 55455                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca (Gord Tulloch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Death March at IBM?
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:30:13 GMT
Summary: Lots of AS/400 and micro action may help... 
Followup-To: gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca
Organization: Cyberspace Online Information System
Keywords: IBM AS/400 THINKPAD 700C 

In article <1992Dec28.181317.6627@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>        I would like to give IBM credit for being honest.  That is,

[ content deleted ]

>	We do continue to show good growth in our services, software*,
>	and our financing businesses.  We are gaining a share in
>	RISC-based workstarions, with our AS/400 and now in personal
>	computers.
>
>	[This might be said to be the only good news paragraph in the 
>	whole report--it is also the only mention of what might 
>	refer to OS/2.  I don't know if it's so comforting to have
>	them putting so much faith in the AS/400, though--they've
>	done that type of thing before.]

I work for a company that provides support (consulting, programming, etc) for 
both RS/6000 and AS/400 systems - AS/400 is selling like hotcakes for some 
reason, even more that RS/6000.  In addition, present Sys/X and AS/400 people
are upgrading to enhanced AS/400 - we see very little rightsizing from that
to AIX (darn the luck!)  

I think IBMs entries into the PC market are very strong too - I spoke to 
manager of the local MicroAge who indicated that Valuepoint and PS/1 sales
are going through the roof, with PS/2 sales remaining steady.  He says people
like the idea of buying IBM at clone prices (or at least the price of a DECENT
clone)

Finally, IBM has finally done something right with laptops - the ThinkPad
machines are great!  We have a customer who ordered a pair of 700C (active 
matrix color, little "jellybean" joystick type mouse, etc) for slightly less
than a Toshiba 4400 with the same setup - and the IBM has a bigger (10") 
screen!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==  Gord Tulloch           |     Voice: (204) 775-3650 (work)     ==
==  173 Antrim Road        |            (204) 663-7941 (home      ==
==  Winnipeg, Manitoba     |     Data : gordt@grpwest.muug.mb.ca  ==
==  R2K 3H9                |            gordt@cyberspc.muug.mb.ca ==
==                         |     FIDO : 1:348/207@fidonet.org     ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
==                    Official IBM OS/2 Ambassador!               ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy