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

And in most cases, Windows is the only practical choice. However, this has nothing to do with any machiavellian manipulations on the part of Microsoft, and everything to do with the overwhelming majority of applications that run only on Windows.

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

That's why they still have barely 5% of the market. They had a huge head start and they blew it.

Most dominant market players eventually become partially corrupt, mainly because people join the company who are greedier, more ambitious, and less ethical as it grows larger. Eventually the kind-hearted engineers are overruled by the marketroids and salespeople, and the revolving door of upper management.

All I recall of the MCA bus was that it went nowhere.

They made a mistake that is often one of the first symptoms of a company in decline: they depended too much on their brand, and not enough on their products. Major market players eventually get lazy and greedy and think that just stamping their well-established brand on garbage or overpriced goods will make them sell. It often works for a short time, but then people wise up, and the game is over. This often happens after the best engineers have left or have been pushed aside by the marketroids and salesmen and MBAs. You can see it happening right now at Hewlett-Packard. The leading edge of the phenomenon has started to appear at Microsoft.

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

...

Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS from. As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's compliance.

Companies don't work that way.

Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows the desktop operating system monopoly.

Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.

Other domains?

It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing business forever.

Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one software publisher over another probably would level the software playing field. I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be a good idea. Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation. How to handle the operating system maker is a good question.

...

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input and output. Input and output is a basic function of the operating system. To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us. Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money. So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer (or hybrid), we will have to wait until other software companies develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it. At the same time, other companies are lazy about software development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.

Yes, but that is not Microsoft's doing, nor does Microsoft have to do anything to maintain it. Indeed, Microsoft can't really change it, either--the company has little choice but to continue to produce OS environments that are compatible with the current Windows environment. Anything else would be a huge and extremely risky gamble, and Microsoft is now moving into that phase of a company's life when it becomes very averse to risk.

Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software is operating systems and office-automation suites. For example, on the computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only about 5% of the total dollar value of all the software on the computer. Which means that for every dollar Microsoft makes selling software, other companies are making about $19.

Yes. Computers are used for other things besides text processing and spreadsheets, and in virtually every other application domain, Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.

Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all of these markets; the company writes software very well, but you have to know more than just how to write software to crack a particular application market. MS did well with Office because it helped define the market by being one of the first to address it. It does fairly well with software development tools because it has to use the tools itself, and thus has learned how to build good ones. But it doesn't know how to do anything else.

Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status quo in operating systems, but it has happened before, and sooner or later it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft will push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue stream. At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative operating systems.

If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss of performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely threatened. However, that is so difficult and expensive to do technically that I'm not particularly concerned about it, and I don't think Microsoft is, either.

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

There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition, and it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft isn't writing any significant applications to begin with. And Microsoft isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.

Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the Windows operating system, but it's also constrained by that position because even Microsoft cannot really propose a new operating system, unless it walks and talks just like the existing Windows OS. It went out on a limb with Windows NT and that was uncomfortably uncertain for years--and NT is an operating system that looks and feels just like preceding versions of Windows to users. Trying something completely new might not work at all, and with the cost of a new operating system now in the billions of dollars, it's a dangerous gamble. And these days Microsoft is becoming increasingly wary of gambling.

It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single operating system is generally best. The only question is which operating system would be technically ideal. Windows is nice but it's probably not ideal. The competition (such as it is) is far worse, however.

There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.

The best way to change things--if change is a good idea--is to come up with a better operating system ... and one that will run everything that Windows runs, because nobody is going to rewrite 250,000 applications overnight.

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

No, he's thinking about Microsoft, a very tiny company back in those days.

During the period under discussion, Microsoft wasn't in a position to force anyone to do anything.

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

There's very little demand for that, and it requires a lot of horsepower. It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it just fine. Getting voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating them than such customers bring in.

It may, or it may not. I've never seen any proof that speech input and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement. They are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such hardware, nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because they don't see any money in it, and they are not operating as charities. The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small to allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

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

It rhymes, which is neat, but what definition of "transpose" are you using, none of the usual ones seem to fit the contect?

:) You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users. Your last assertion does not follow.

Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into trouble for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for Internet Explorer too.

I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea those were a small share of the applications market.

I will be happy to compare resources on the subject.

Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.

Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's there.

I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use and sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a better way to innovation.

Not in the personal computer operating system market.

and sooner or later

Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and require lots of coordination between consumers and programmers. Maybe if everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media help.

So? Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?

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

-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

In your opinion.

Still wondering where you got that idea.

Microsoft favors its own applications developers.

And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works suite.

Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers choose applications (except for Office applications). There are other monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and Office.

The basis would be to spur innovation. Whether it is legal or ethical is up to the government and its religious leaders I guess.

There.

That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.

newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.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-dvRGJVUbdpPNNVuTOuwiZ2WTy8l0eoTAHFUBXjMQz9fZZyyVdMQuPaiWLMwgteQpGulmQLm/XGb1A+h!kmahICdUx2Q3irwAi+/zBex8zr0cRdyGsdBwLj4ghBglJBWmWZRKV4TOdV56TWOU+w==

properly

sci.electronics.repair:427328 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448767

How did Microsoft prevent competition? As the end user had no problems installing Lotus SmartSuite if they wanted to. So no problems there. And MS Office is not free anyway, again no problems there.

And there has been awhile now, Sun's OpenOffice which can be had for free! Claims to open MS Office files and all. If it were any good, it would wipe out MS Office off of the map for sure. But the truth is, it ain't as good. Thus it still isn't a threat to MS.

You somehow believe MS stifles competition. While I believe just the opposite. As at anytime, anybody can come along and actually do something better than Microsoft. And often it does happen in niche areas of Windows and it has made them (not MS) rich. This has been great for competition. Because when something comes out better, MS plays catch up to try to match or exceed their competition.

I actually believe Windows is the de facto desktop today because of competition. As there were other competitors for a GUI on top of DOS like GEM and GEOS. And they were doing well until Apple sued Microsoft for the look and feel. And MS quickly improved Windows to be as good and sometimes better than the competition. In this case, in all of them (GEM, GEOS, and the Mac).

So don't tell me that Microsoft stifles competition. Because that just ain't so! Although I would agree that Microsoft has enough resources to usually come out on top. Maybe that is what you really have a problem with.

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

-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

Traditionally most PCs have been used in business, not at home, so most PC users have even more expensive software installed than I do. It's true that those who are at home may not have as much, especially when you consider how much they've probably pirated.

Microsoft didn't destroy Netscape. Netscape was almost unbelievably poorly managed. It was self-destructing without Microsoft's help. Read the story of Netscape; it's amazing.

They are a small percentage of the applications available. I don't even have Office on my computer; it's too bloated and expensive, and I haven't found a use for it.

Programmers that are both good at programming and experts in a specific applications field and are superb systems analysts are scarce, at any price. And you need lots and lots of them to build new applications. Additionally, you need a complete chain of command that understands the business, not just programmers and analysts.

Yes. Microsoft did it, and others did not.

There _is_ competition, but it's not very good. Borland was another case of bad management, even when they were beating Microsoft.

In fact, in many cases, it's not that Microsoft made the right decisions so much as the competition consistently made the wrong decisions.

There have been resounding Microsoft failures, such as the oft-cited Microsoft Bob, but also things like Photo Draw 2000, which was a joke (Image Composer, which MS had bought earlier, was much better, but MS still abandoned it, thinking it could rewrite something superior from scratch--MS was wrong).

Microsoft still has a hard time with database servers, since it knows nothing about database production environments. The same handicap keeps it behind the curve in the server market as well.

What Microsoft does, it does well. But it really has a hard time learning new things.

From the Mac to Windows. From MS-DOS to Windows. From CP/M to MS-DOS. And so on.

Granted, the greater the inertia, the slower the change.

Well, right now, everyone is happy with Microsoft Windows, except for a handful of whining geeks who want to change things. The average business or home user, though, gets everything he needs from Windows, and has no reason whatsoever to change. In fact, a sudden change would be bad for consumers, not good, no matter how much it might please the geeks.

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

Deliberately crippling a company that is successful is never a good idea, and historically has had either no effect or a negative effect.

As I've explained, Microsoft builds operating systems, and a suite of office-automation applications. And that's essentially it. Almost all its revenue comes from these two product areas (especially the latter).

No doubt, but that's what companies are supposed to do. However, the only applications it develops are Office applications.

Most of Microsoft's revenue comes from Office. Works is not worth buying, and indeed MS gives it away sometimes.

So what? Who is losing here? Not the programmers writing for Windows. Not the consumers using it. Not Microsoft. Not the publishers of those other 249,998 Windows applications. Where is the problem, exactly?

How much innovation do you expect when companies know that their intellectual property will be seized and placed in the public domain if they become too successful?

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