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

Especially FreeBSD.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Not surprised at all, given what I know of him and the company (and their history). But reading the latest trendy books on management for tips when you're in charge of a multi-billion dollar company is a bit worrisome. CEOs of large and successful companies are supposed to be in a position to write books about their own successful techniques, rather than try to pick them up from others.

Some do, some don't. A lot of trade rags aren't worth reading.

It's the stuff of legend. There were good reasons for it; it's just that IBM tried to apply the same philosophy to very different markets, unsuccessfully. It seems self-evident that what works for mainframes would not work for PCs, but apparently this never occurred to IBM, even though it certainly occurred to others.

But now others are making similar mistakes. One reason why Microsoft has such a terrible time trying to break into the server market is that it has absolutely no clue on how that market works. To Microsoft, everything is just like a desktop, just as IBM saw everything as a mainframe. A lot of people at Microsoft don't even know what a mainframe is, and yet they are trying to sell into a comparable market.

Alas, most companies don't hire on the basis of intelligence. And the larger they get, the more unintelligent deadwood they acquire.

Even if they are something new and different, most people using computers don't want to continually change to something new and different. They just want a tool that works; and once it works, they're content to leave it untouched forever (and in fact that's what they prefer).

Would you be willing to buy a new washing machine every year, each one with a completely different way of operating and a whole new set of instructions?

Yes. But remember that the market was microscopic in those days compared to today. The inertia is much greater now. Additionally, users today are much more likely to have all they need in current operating systems, and so are even less likely to change.

First we need a reason for these things. Most users have no reason to care about any of these developments. Many users can still get by with Windows 3.1 functionality; a far greater number are happy with Windows 95 (tons of people are still running it, and I don't ever expect them to change).

But increasingly similar management mistakes. DEC seemed very different from IBM, too, but it eventually succumbed to the same management errors.

If he's truly brilliant, he'll see the end of buggy whips coming and steer his company into other domains before it happens. But CEOs tend to fall in love with whatever brought them their first big successes, and then they don't want to think about anything else later on.

You can have a smart management team that serves the same purpose as a genius. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you get the critical mass of intelligence together at the top.

Yes, I believe so. Bill Gates has never been gifted for domains outside of his own, though. Just as Microsoft has no clue when it comes to servers or mainframes, it has no clue when it comes to ISPs.

Yes.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I don't have any stock in any of these companies, so I don't care for the most part, but I am concerned for the stability of my operating system and applications and hardware, as I don't like to break things that are working, and I don't like to spend money or time needlessly.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Your personal attacks hurt when you're trying to advance in debate.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!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-c1fqLXtn1EHh/HpOMj5CN49shdwrg/oCCynl9kd2t+csfVo90ixpLPGNmibBCdXoiiBrFzwXyMWu7aP!uGTNS/LNQ7rq/efykJi/S+n+PW7DeLwvcG1D6koOYRyXnwKA1EEthHX+KARCUt6MUw==

properly

sci.electronics.repair:427641 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448956

When did anyone take sides?

Common, but not universal.

Most years, yes. But I don't see what that has to do with Microsoft.

Easy to suggest, but extremely difficult to substantiate.

A lot of companies are falling all over each other in the race to outsource anything and everything. Microsoft didn't invent the idea and they aren't particularly prominent in their use thereof.

Outsourcing doesn't require lobbying. I know of lots of companies that are doing it.

It's an example of Steve Ballmer's move towards bottom-line management, which is always a move in the wrong direction over the long term.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

None.

Of course it did.

Only you could refer to the entire contents of that ruling in the singular.

I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on P/L responsibility.

You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical sentences. That's interchangeably in my book.

The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't discuss it with you.

newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.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?]

sv3-7bdM/UuWqtinmskMZhd3uapqLQ8/Y3mHIWZw5uqinrt8ujvW+YhiBn7rw/9stiDqwHEmY54SIV/5qE9!Xp7dM5u8U311aZj5yUdrA4RJRUKVJG21Wv/BXinpGUezxniiXjgK4lomtnGaxhyeeQ==

properly

sci.electronics.repair:427643 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448959

newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr33.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7c009807!not-for-mail

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

accurate as cheap quartz watches?]

TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC VJM

sci.electronics.repair:427649 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448963

Are you trying to answer that question?

Do you know the difference between the operating system and applications?

You are full of it.

It's a simple question.

Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market?

newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail

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

accurate as cheap quartz watches?]

Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

sci.electronics.repair:427659 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448973

newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.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-Bvz+GQmtTiaVbu6uYjihDm3oIg5TRoSwOzzcaQAOP6sIQ6qOrD4dUX7+kFlkbe7N+LhsCV/kpX2aVGg!ZprNfZOivnvd8Xc169TuKPae13A1Z4ujIExGF3dabCSnBcLe7ogm0tvC9QZJqx+CoQ==

properly

sci.electronics.repair:427656 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448970

newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.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-B1L3XlByFVulv90wzewPAX391jPmpgU38lEHfgjrCW7StyFTYl+nx+1htnnJOnUCOY48dGA/0Usoa67!dFAE6Z3NxahCjsJYsz0PSp3sP+RwcwUcZFHl76NPwf1mOlHI5x0uGm56sBOaGFb17g==

properly

sci.electronics.repair:427658 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448972

I don't know a thing about him but even a genius would be foolish to not read up even if for no other reason to see what your competition is doing.

I'd sure worry about the one's who don't.

Oh come on. You know that's a straw man.

Yep. That's what I mean about transporting 'visions'.

Yeah, I know, but it seems to be a common problem. But then that's also what spawns industry mantras like "don't stray from your core business" and why in risk management anything you haven't done before it automatically flagged a risk no matter how trivial it seems. It ain't 'trivial' because you don't know enough to know whether it's 'trivial' or not.

In that case they have the wrong development process because the first thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other.

Well, they *think* they are.

Maybe the problem is that deadwood floats ;)

Of course, and that's why I said it takes something significant to the primary mission.

No, but if it were 1930 and I had a hand crank unit I might be willing to 'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though its still just a washing machine.

It's true there's more inertia but I've heard the "all you likely need" argument since DOS came out.

There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you can't with the 16.

Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't ;)

Computers are one of, if not the, most synergistic products ever devised with more powerful computers enabling applications previously unheard of and developers dreaming of applications current machines can't handle spurring them on to ever more power. And people who thought a typewriter was perfectly fine now can't live without publisher quality full graphics.

You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really 'needed' those 'first'?

I just think they're different errors ;)

That's because its where their 'great idea' and experience/insight lives and saying the buggy whip CEO should steer the company to a new domain is easier said than done. It just isn't obvious what else that magic 'crack' his whips make applies to and even if he finds an alternative it's not nearly as likely to be another 'great idea' but more of a settling for 'something'.

I agree and you're coming close to the 'process' approach. Just needs a tad bit larger 'team', and the process.

Yeah. But that was the thing we were musing about: where the man with the 'great idea' got the next 'great idea' and whether it was as easy as it sounds. And whether the lack of new 'great ideas' was due to him being gone and new management.

Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day ;)

It should have been enough that I said I didn't intend to discuss it with you but, upon your insistence, I've given enough of the reasons why I don't intend to discuss it with you that even you should be able to grasp that I don't intend to discuss it with you.

It's nice to see others expressing the same feeling.

ROTFL!!! Still lying I see. Also you claim that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market. Yet to pull this off, you have to ignore the *fact* there are millions of PCs not running Microsoft software at all.

You also somehow believe that Microsoft killed off Netscape. Yet Netscape is still in business today and is now owned by AOL. And the old Netscape management screwed up royally. As Steve Case of AOL really hated Microsoft and really wanted Netscape for its default browser.

But Netscape wouldn't give what Steve wanted. They wouldn't integrated it into AOL software. Plus they wanted AOL to pay for every copy of Netscape (I believe it was 10 bucks each). And there were millions of AOL users. That would add up to megabucks! Then Microsoft came along and said we'll integrate it into AOL for you. And you can have IE for free. Well Steve picked IE over Netscape. And this is when Netscape started losing market share. Because Netscape got greedy, they lost out. And that's the truth.

__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)

-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

Trim your posts, you mouth breathing moron.

I don't understand this statement.

How?

Yes.

Because they would all use different file formats, for example.

Yes, and almost all of it is Microsoft Office.

It's not, but it's more than most individual software companies.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

And then AOL bought Netscape just to put it to sleep, so that MSIE would be less encumbered.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

They haven't done that. They've been able to make a lot of money doing what they know how to do, so they've never developed the habit of learning to do other things.

The aforementioned PhotoDraw 2000 was a classic example. It was clearly written by people who were expert in using standard Windows constructs and tools, people who knew the Windows interface inside and out and could produce semi-transparent, glistening, rose-scented context menus blindfolded ... but these people knew nothing whatsoever about image processing, and the piece of junk they produced was an absolute horror. It was quickly and quietly discontinued.

Someone might be willing to upgrade from an original PC to a brand-new one today, too. But a lot of the intermediate upgrades are unnecessary. And someone using an old PC to get things done doesn't need an upgrade, as long as the old PC does the job.

Some people still run DOS. Each newer version of a PC OS leaves more and more people still running with prior versions. It gets harder and harder to convince anyone to "upgrade," especially outside the geek community.

But there are also things for which you don't need 32-bit architecture.

And they still don't have computers.

No. And I know that hardly anyone is using those extra features.

Ray Kroc came into his own in his fifties.

-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.