Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more complicated than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark. :)

The better the vocabulary, the more precise and efficient the communication.

It's impossible to know another person's vocabulary level unless he indicates his level in some way. People with large vocabularies have a natural tendency to use those vocabularies to the fullest and do not necessarily realize it when and if they exceed the recognition vocabularies of their interlocutors.

A stranglehold? Perhaps you meant a struggle, which far better characterizes Microsoft's activities back in those days.

In the world of computer software, the advantages of standardization are so enormous that they sometimes take priority over almost everything else, particularly from the standpoint of ordinary computer users (as opposed to specialists).

Thus, although Microsoft Windows is by far the dominant desktop operating system, the advantages of it being so outweigh the disadvantages in many respects for the average end user, which is why it tends to remain the dominant operating system.

And you got this little tid-bit where? "Psychology are Us". You are sooo good at pulling bullshit out of the air and passing it off as valid material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion without verification and you sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why I'm here, damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me a "conspiracy buff" and a "paranoid". How about letting me in on what my life will be like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you want to take a crack at it.

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind of impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the one you just horked up.

So there.

newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

accurate as cheap quartz watches?]

sv3-Luey5wfuBJ76wTOK6Uzb2ylrgCDZeBmCv3iA5TpqKzoyiOjG7oJJe/+ocvdLmj2H7JWnO1eVeWUPWV6!le90vMvU/q4hh7gWSwWfzkNKKbbod2+gQus38ausTCaB9B/xwvXEgySS/m6VXa1hsyXQX/c=

properly

sci.electronics.repair:432881 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452523

I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it published Windows 95.

I didn't say by you nor is it even implied.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple english.

Don't tell anyone but I have a special secret: I know how to look things up and read =:O)

Why don't you go find another word and expand your vocabulary?

I didn't say by you nor is it even implied.

In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple english.

Don't tell anyone but I have a special secret: I know how to look things up and read =:O)

Why don't you go find another word and expand your vocabulary?

newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt

accurate as cheap quartz watches?]

sv3-VXB23SbuUBHR4ZM1Vy+GRN7eBbQjOzz8hjeXzUKGA0PRcgdulO6wPVxl70toi4rDbIi2SCalL+qxTZN!rmhPg72xSDyyCq7JGTTDBDmc3GVKxsF4QZ9n5JoPqwJqrctBKQiTzoj4rFpyEG72H83Jj9M=

properly

sci.electronics.repair:432885 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452525

I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's something in the contract, like he gets a discount with every brown nosing Microsoft defender reply.

Not by me. You always defend Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement spoken as if you took them to heart.

Are you saying you are just a troll?

And he keeps going, and going, and going. It's like he perpetually runs on fumes.

It's the one represented by the blindfolded lady of justice standing in front of the court: that the case shall be judged on the merits and not who one hates the most. And that was precisely the context of my comment.

Netscape was a complainant and in a civil case both sides are equal and equally under scrutiny. Neither is presumed innocent or guilty.

As for the government's case, it is a fundamental legal principle that one cannot use the law to 'enforce' an illegality (for example, an illegal drug supplier cannot sue his 'customer' for non payment and collect) so if Netscape were behaving in an illegal manner the court should not 'enforce' that illegality. So, yes, Netscape would also be 'on trial' in that context.

I presented it (below) as an "interesting" conundrum.

And brother you should know.

It's 100% true and nothing you present here contradicts it.

That was certainly Netscape's 'argument'. Whether there were actually any OEMS crying over wanting Netscape *exclusively* is debatable.

They were expected to not cut and hack Microsoft's product up, yes. And no one likes having their product mangled by OEMs.

The argument that the user would be befuddled by two browsers was certainly made but, frankly, as easy as it is to befuddle the average user I've never noticed that being a problem no matter how many browsers they had. Seems a lot of them can read, like "Internet Explorer" vs "Netscape" vs "Opera" vs "Firefox," etc.

Really? "we all know?" You must have been a busy beaver surveying the population of the entire planet for that absolute, all inclusive, declaration.

All I know is I certainly wouldn't buy one without a browser, not that I know of any that don't come with one, and, in that context at the very least, it's a 'necessary part' so if I were making a desktop O.S. it would be in the design specifications. In my opinion.

And I've used Netscape. And you, Mr. Post Headers Freak, should certainly know I'm using it right now. Funny how I was never 'prevented' from doing so by anyone, even without a law suit. Always had more than one media player too.

There's no maybe to it. And they acted in what textbooks describe, to show why they're 'bad', the classic monopoly manner: first offering the product at a low price, in their case free, and then, once a commanding market share is established, increasing the price.

I've told you a thousand times that I am not going to discuss the case with you and my simply describing the state of affairs at that time isn't a 'defense' of anyone either.

From every conspiracy buff or paranoid I've ever run across, heard of, read about, or seen in a movie. The retort to contradiction or disbelief is that the other person is uninformed and/or naive, with naive being the last resort after the disbeliever does not accept the 'evidence' provided as irrefutable proof of said conspiracy.

I can only go by what you say here, which was "Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change your mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times." And nothing else.

No discussion of any issue, fact, or statement of mine. No rebuttal of fact or substance. No counter argument. Just a blanket claim I'm 'naive' because I do not agree with your opinion.

It fit the pattern I've seen exhibited by conspiracy buffs and paranoids.

Nice snip job, btw.

Getting a bit paranoid, are we?

A cut and paste will suffice here "Conclusion without verification and you sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why I'm here, damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me."

ROTFLOL

Microsoft uses the same contemptuous argument in every bundling case. That's what it said also in the European Union case about Windows Media Player. The EU didn't buy it either.

That's something most of us could only say "DUH" to.

Some of the things Microsoft lawyers said during the trial were so incredibly silly.

But you know, not long ago someone in here said that a computer without the Internet is not a computer. And they were serious. Gives me an eerie feeling, like it's Microsoft speak or something.

I think the idea of separating the operating system from the applications was the main part of the proposed remedy.

Consumers buy Windows because of so many available applications. Software developers write for Windows because so many people buy Windows. I think that's the positive feedback loop which the court called "the applications barrier to entry" and that's how Microsoft holds monopoly power.

Microsoft was concerned that the Java contained/distributed in navigator would allow too many applications to run on non-Microsoft operating systems and end Microsoft's monopoly power.

I think it was mainly about how Microsoft used its monopoly power to force Netscape Navigator out of the market.

Same here even though I did follow it closely at the time.

I didn't realize it was going to drag on for years, I learned about the slowness of major court proceedings too.

Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English has understanding "I refuse to discuss it with you."

Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English has understanding "declining to discuss is not a defense of anyone."

I've noticed.