Oh, well. Mine ran on 5 (bought the OS before I bought the box). Then spent the weekend reading the manual while waiting for the box to be delivered.
Then a few years later read that the supplier "got nailed" for selling computers w/o an OS. Its like nobody realized that you CAN buy an OS at retail. They all just assumed that bare box == pirate.
WFW cured a lot of the problems with win 3.1, which was a LOT better than 3.0, which was just a toy that I felt I had been ripped off. If you want some fun, make a bootable CD with dos and WFW. It'll boot REALLY FAST in comparison to pretty much anything else.
I did this, and stuck some old DOS games on it, as well as compilers, etc. Pretty neat trip down memory lane. The old DOOM, Arkanoids, Rescue Rover, etc., are still fun, and they all play fine off a CD.
I remember the smartdisk cache problems. I was lucky on that - used PCTools cache instead (okay, 7.0 had problems too, but Central Point was pretty good about issuing the bug fixes on disk, mailed, for free).
in 2001 U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development
So what US industry is saying is that there is a HUGE market for "Mr. LEGAL BEAGLE" software.
Okay, Captains of Industry!
Tired of spending big bux on lawyers?
Subscribe to our Mr. Legal Beagle software service, and kiss your torts goodbye!
Now, instead of counting the dollars wasted every minute you talk to an attorney, you can do a web-based "interview" with our legal AI, who will analyse your case and prepare any necessary briefs.
When it comes time to go to court, just bring your laptop and a wireless internet connection, and Mr. Legal Beagle will argue your case for you.
Choose from 7 exciting avatars - including Beezlebub (our most popular), Snoopy, and Darl McBride (insanity pleas). More added every month.
Extra services - Mr. Bribe and Mr. BreakYourLegs - for when you want to "negociate" a "settlement." At an extra cost, of course.
So what are you waiting for? Don't waste another penny on lawyers. Get Mr. Legal Beagle TODAY. Before your competitors or customers do, and sue YOU!
You picked an example from the 1800's. You've failed to point out how it's relevant in todays'market. Your claiming it is doesn't make it so.
Then you go on to misquote me, which is what I expect from little fuckers who can't read, when you say"
You point out the Pepsi "originally" gained some market share through selling more for less,
Read what I wrote. I did not say "some market share". I explained their tactic of marketing long-term, by getting the kids to buy pepsi vs coke by using a larger bottle. This is what gave them their market share a generation later.
Then you go on with this distraction:
It also doesn't explain why heavily advertised breakfast cereals that taste exactly the
Never mentioned cereals.
Then you write this brain fart:
use the Microsoft monopoly to explain how Microsoft gained a monopoly.
... again, that is NOT what I wrote. I wrote that they used illegal tactics to get to be a monopoly. Fuck, are you dumb.
You have so consistently ignored the obvious self-contradictory implications of your arguments that I'm wondering if anyone is really that dumb, or if you're just pretending.
You have consistently ignored history, facts, etc., because you want to believe that advertising works. Most of it doesn't. As I pointed out, and you ignored, massive volumes of advertising isn't helping Ford or GM, whereas Toyota is eating their lunch with much less advertising, because they have a MUCH better product, and people no longer trust advertising.
Bad choice. Listerine is from the snake-oil days - created in 1879.
People were also buying repackaged turpentine then as a "curative."
Todays' consumer isn't the same country bumpkin.
Also, your "history" of the PC operating systems ignores the fact, as established in the courts, that Microsoft got to where it is by illegal presure tactics applied to computer vendors, not advertising. So yeah, I'm right. Thank you very much. Don't eat the fish.
I'm amazed that you would even claim to believe that if Pepsi stopped advertising for a year they would lose more than they would save, and Coke wouldn't get any of their market share.
Never said those particular words, but it can very well be true. Look at the disaster that was "new coke." No amount of advertising can save a piece of shit product in a competetive market, just as advertising is unnecessary in a monopolistic market. Cut the ads, lower the price by a nickel, and you'll gain market share. Pepsi originally gained market share, not by advertising, but by selling in a larger bottle for the same price. 7 oz coke bottle vs. 10 oz pepsi bottle. If you were a kid, the choice was obvious - more for your money. Those kids stayed loyal as they grew older, not because of advertising, but because they were first captured by the better price-per-oz value proposition.
Most advertising is wasted. And the WORST in terms of efffectiveness is internet advertising. And the worst legit internet advertising is banner ads. The worst internet advertising overall in terms of effectiveness is spam.
The best advertising ever is word-of-mouth. You can't buy it. You can only earn it. Of course, companies like Ford and GM haven't learned this lesson yet, while the Japanese automakers know it quite well. Sure, they advertise, but not nearly as much in terms of percentage of profit as GM and Ford. And guess who's more profitable? Oh, that's right, GM and Ford are losing money and are rumoured to be headed for the bankruptcy bin. Advertising is really helping them.
your assertion that everyone used the compression feature
Not the same thing, is it...
So stop mis-quoting, then saying the assertion which I never made is false. It's YOUR false assertion, not mine.
It's poor debating style, more suited to politicians and kids.
Hey, you're not going to get an argument from me if you're implying the lawyers were greedy, scum-sucking bottom-feeders.
Fortunately class action law has evolved.
In my jurisdiction, you're now automatically part of the class if a product is bogus unless you opt out.
Makes it much easier for class actions to succeed.
You also suggest that advertising isn't effective. Can you think explain why all the successful soda, beer and car companies spend so much on advertising?
You answer your own question. They have to spend so much because it ISN'T effective. Go up to someone 1 minute after they've seen a commercial and ask them to identify the product. Chances are, they can't even remember the commercial.
Microsoft doesn't need advertising. No quasi-monopoly does. Its like your local electric utility advertising - there's no need, its not like you can switch, in most cases.
As for the car companies, look at how much money Ford and GM are losing this year, even with their heavily-advertised "employee pricing" plan. Look at how Toyota, without a similar plan, is now #2 worldwide, and going to be #1 within a few years. When's the last time ANY japanese car manufacturer had to do an advertising blitz offering ANY sort of rebate.
Ask anyone in the business - most advertising IS wasted.
This would imply that more advertising is targeted to people that voted against Bush
In turn there is the implication that advertising works better on people that didn't vote for Bush, because businesses prefer to invest where there is more expected return.
Why? The people making SUVs are going to direct their ads to Bush supporters, who are less likely to accept that global warming is here, and that we need fewer, not more, SUVs. And most ads are failures, even after all the market studies and focus groups.
People who have already swallowed 1 or more neocon lies (there is no global warming, there are weapons of mass destruction, we are winning the war on terror, we will be out of Iraq within 6 months, god is on our side, allowing gays and lesbians to marry will destroy the family) have already demonstrated their stupidity. Voting for Bush twice is just more of the same... perhaps its not a coincidence that Bush bears a resemblance to Alfred E Neuman of Mad Magazine.
However, this did NOT happen on systems that did NO multitasking.
Not to be rude, but yes it did. After uninstalling Win 3.1 for the umpteenth time because it was a piece of shit and only served as a front end on my machine for DOS apps (principally the goodness from the company once known as Borland*) anyway, I reformatted and installed JUST DOS and my apps. My guess - an off-by-one error somewhere. MS has a history of that, and you wouldn't expect it to happen too often, and most of the time when it did, it would go unnoticed. After all, who cares about 1 pixel being off in a bitmap or code that 999 x out of 1000, is never exercised.
And my benchmarks were on machines (286/20 and several 386s - remember, this is back in the neolithic) that also had doublespace or stacker removed, and 6.0 was slower, no question about it, specifically the disk-access routines. What I found amusing, though, was that, after putting things back to "normal" (no compression, dropping back to D0S 5, etc), I decided to benchmark the drives using a set of routines I wrote in assembler rather than C, and was able to achieve way OVER the disks' rated performance in terms of data transfer rate.
*yeah, I know, Borland still exists, but it sure as hell isn't the same Borland that we all knew and loved way back when.
the bug in 6.0 was in ALL the trade mags. Everyone who was anyone in IT at the time, and most half-clued-in users, couldn't help but notice. It was also in the mainstream media.
Going to the site in your info reveals that you are a relative late-comer to the game, which explains why you didn't get bit by it - sitting around playing Doom isn't going to reveal the bug.
I've had to repeat myself so many times over this - most of you are too new - you don't remember the marketing for DOS 6.0, where disk compression was THE feature in double-page ads in the newspapers (not just the trade mags). Quickly followed by tons of reports of people losing data.
Most computers then were 2-3 year-old 286 and 386 boxes with 40-80 meg hard drives. Even a 50% increase in disk space was enough to get people to plop for it, as it was a LOT cheaper than a second hard disk.
These are people who bought a defective product that was heavily marketed for the very thing this class action was set to address. All the lawyers had to do was bring in the store ads, or the newspaper ads, or even the FUCKING RETAIL BOX!
And people wonder why I say most lawyers aren't worth shit.
Guess you didn't read the news earlier today. One of their lawyers is up for the Supreme Court. They can do a-ny-thing.
Little boy blue, come blow your horn,
The sheeps in the meadow, the cows in the corn,
Little boy blue says "I don't give a shit"
I'm fucking Miss Muffet - no more lonely nights with sheep or cows for me, baby! And lay off the "little boy" crap!
Oh, some of them rhyme. But the rhyming isn't the point (the ones that don't are more effective because of their discordance).
The "mary had a little sheep" isn't original, neither are the "hickory dickory" or the "little mendel" ones, but some of them ("Old mother hubbard") are.
Its not too hard. Take any nursery rhyme or childhod ditty - I'm sure you can turn it around into something warped.
Old king Cole was a merry old soul,
A merry old soul was he,
He called for his 'ludes, he called for his zantac,
He OD'd - he's now his-to-ry!
Yep, ZDNET and Microsoft Get The Facts - 2 sources of dependable information...
Guess the editors are [tt]rolling the readers - must be Troll Tuesday again.
This old man, he played one,
He played knick-knack on my thumb
With a knick-knack paddy-wack, give a dog a bone
That old pedaphile now has jail for a home.
Yeah, I can't wait for them to resemble their previous name - Caldera - a big smoking hole.
Definitely excessive generosity on Wells' part - looked like someone who was out of their league or getting bamboozled. Seems to me that by this point most judges would have told them to stop with the word games in their briefs, for example, as it shows a lack of respect for the court and the process.
At the time they wre first implanted, we didn't know as much about the problems caused by silicone leaking into the body as we do now. They were supposed to be as safe as saline. They're not. It's a real problem, and not just for women. Think of it - guy marries a woman, and finds out she needs a double mastectomy and is facing a lifetime of joint pain because her plastic boobies ruptured. Everyone is a loser.
Breast implants aren't damaging. Their PRESENCE isn't damaging. Look it up, and you'll see that this claim
"Since they are unsafe"
ia a lie.
Really? So, when the courts ruled that the urethane foam coating on the "Meme" silicone breast implant was found to be unsafe in and of itself, and it was pulled from the market, that doesn't count? Or when excess pressure had to be used to counteract capsular contracture because of the presence of the UNDAMAGED, NOT LEAKING breast implant, which then went on to damage the implant, leaking silicone into the body, that wasn't a problem?
So, since you can't even get your facts straight, tell me again why anyone should take you seriously?
Product: Silicone gel filled breast implants, for use in breast augmentation, breast reconstruction, and correction of congenital malformation:
(a) Optimam (polyurethane foam covered); (b) Meme (polyurethane foam covered); (c) Vogue (polyurethane foam covered); (d) Replicon (polyurethane foam covered); (e) Meme Moderate Profile (polyurethane foam covered); (f) Natural Y (polyurethane foam covered); (g) Custom Polyurethane Covered Implants; (h) Standard Bilumen; (i) Standard Gel; (j) Standard Gel/Saline; (k) Standard Adjustable Reconstructive; (l) Standard Teardrop Gel (GB Snyder); (m) Georgaide; (n) Perras-Papillon; (o) Special Fills SCL or Standard; (p) Products larger than 600 cubic centimeters.
Recall #Z-1109/1124-1.
Code: All lot numbers/control numbers and catalog numbers of the above 14 models.
Manufacturer: Surgitek Mec, Paso Robles, California and Surgitek Mec, Racine, Wisconsin.
Recalled by: Surgitek Mec, Paso Robles, California, by letter dated July 9, 1991. Firm-initiated recall ongoing.
Distribution: Nationwide and international.
Quantity: Unknown.
Reason: These silicone gel-filled breast prostheses (SGFBP) were on the market after July 9, 1991, without a premarket approval application (PMA), as required by the final rule of April 10, 1991, pursuant to Section 515(b) of the FD&C Act.
Of course, next you'll be saying that there are no concerns about tobacco, either.
As I have pointed out many times in this thread, disk compression was heavily marketed by Microsoft. It was THE ONLY FEATURE in a two-page ad in the local newspaper, for example. It was all over the place - "double your disk space."
People bought it - then were warned not to use the compression feature because of corruption. I know - I was one of the suckers who went back to 5.0 after getting fucked - and I'm not the only one.
I used to think that Wells and Kimball were "appeal-proofing" the case. Now I think that, in retrospect, they got caught with their collective pants down.
Their job is NOT to appeal-proof cases. Their job is to judge. They do not need ALL the facts - just sufficient facts to be able to render a judgment. There have been sufficient facts for a LONG time. This should have been judged, and any appeal would probably be in the process of being briefed by now, or moot.
now that would be a cool, useful feature. that would actually be a "must-have" that would make anyone want to dump any competing product (except vi, of course).
If Microsoft was being sued over a bug that affected a core feature of the OS, that too would equally applied to everyone who purchased the system.
It (disk compression) was heavily advertised, and was the #1 reason to upgrade. Remember the tiny hard disks (40-100 meg) back then?
But since the bug was limited to a feature that only a small group of people used
... because reports quickly surfaced that it corrupted data. Everyone I know used it, and everyone experienced corruption, and downgraded back to DOS 5 (it also didn't help that DOS 6 was, on average, between 11 and 17% SLOWER than DOS 5).
but Microsoft shouldn't have to pay damages to people who never intended to use the feature to begin with.
Guess you should dig out the box it came in. It was intended for everyone, and it was a major push. Double-page ads in the newspapers pushing DOUBLE YOUR HARD DISK SPACE.
So how does this not qualify as a "core feature" of that version?
Well, there's the worry that they will break in the future. That worry is not something they should have, as the implants should have been safe to begin with.
Since they are unsafe, the proper route is to replace them with safer products before the damage is done. This is a quickly-determinable cost. "Potential damage" is also "potentially unlimited." Look at the suits over asbestos and implants that have sent their manufacturers into Chapter 11.
Slashdot Mirror
Then a few years later read that the supplier "got nailed" for selling computers w/o an OS. Its like nobody realized that you CAN buy an OS at retail. They all just assumed that bare box == pirate.
You're making me homesick for my old 286/20. Cold boot to ready-to-do-what-you-want in 17 seconds, warm boot in 15. (or was it the other way around?)
I did this, and stuck some old DOS games on it, as well as compilers, etc. Pretty neat trip down memory lane. The old DOOM, Arkanoids, Rescue Rover, etc., are still fun, and they all play fine off a CD.
I remember the smartdisk cache problems. I was lucky on that - used PCTools cache instead (okay, 7.0 had problems too, but Central Point was pretty good about issuing the bug fixes on disk, mailed, for free).
Then you go on to misquote me, which is what I expect from little fuckers who can't read, when you say"
Read what I wrote. I did not say "some market share". I explained their tactic of marketing long-term, by getting the kids to buy pepsi vs coke by using a larger bottle. This is what gave them their market share a generation later.Then you go on with this distraction:
Never mentioned cereals. Then you write this brain fart:... again, that is NOT what I wrote. I wrote that they used illegal tactics to get to be a monopoly. Fuck, are you dumb.You have consistently ignored history, facts, etc., because you want to believe that advertising works. Most of it doesn't. As I pointed out, and you ignored, massive volumes of advertising isn't helping Ford or GM, whereas Toyota is eating their lunch with much less advertising, because they have a MUCH better product, and people no longer trust advertising.People were also buying repackaged turpentine then as a "curative."
Todays' consumer isn't the same country bumpkin.
Also, your "history" of the PC operating systems ignores the fact, as established in the courts, that Microsoft got to where it is by illegal presure tactics applied to computer vendors, not advertising. So yeah, I'm right. Thank you very much. Don't eat the fish.
Never said those particular words, but it can very well be true. Look at the disaster that was "new coke." No amount of advertising can save a piece of shit product in a competetive market, just as advertising is unnecessary in a monopolistic market. Cut the ads, lower the price by a nickel, and you'll gain market share. Pepsi originally gained market share, not by advertising, but by selling in a larger bottle for the same price. 7 oz coke bottle vs. 10 oz pepsi bottle. If you were a kid, the choice was obvious - more for your money. Those kids stayed loyal as they grew older, not because of advertising, but because they were first captured by the better price-per-oz value proposition.Most advertising is wasted. And the WORST in terms of efffectiveness is internet advertising. And the worst legit internet advertising is banner ads. The worst internet advertising overall in terms of effectiveness is spam.
The best advertising ever is word-of-mouth. You can't buy it. You can only earn it. Of course, companies like Ford and GM haven't learned this lesson yet, while the Japanese automakers know it quite well. Sure, they advertise, but not nearly as much in terms of percentage of profit as GM and Ford. And guess who's more profitable? Oh, that's right, GM and Ford are losing money and are rumoured to be headed for the bankruptcy bin. Advertising is really helping them.
So stop mis-quoting, then saying the assertion which I never made is false. It's YOUR false assertion, not mine. It's poor debating style, more suited to politicians and kids.
In my jurisdiction, you're now automatically part of the class if a product is bogus unless you opt out.
Makes it much easier for class actions to succeed.
Microsoft doesn't need advertising. No quasi-monopoly does. Its like your local electric utility advertising - there's no need, its not like you can switch, in most cases.
As for the car companies, look at how much money Ford and GM are losing this year, even with their heavily-advertised "employee pricing" plan. Look at how Toyota, without a similar plan, is now #2 worldwide, and going to be #1 within a few years. When's the last time ANY japanese car manufacturer had to do an advertising blitz offering ANY sort of rebate.
Ask anyone in the business - most advertising IS wasted.
People who have already swallowed 1 or more neocon lies (there is no global warming, there are weapons of mass destruction, we are winning the war on terror, we will be out of Iraq within 6 months, god is on our side, allowing gays and lesbians to marry will destroy the family) have already demonstrated their stupidity. Voting for Bush twice is just more of the same ... perhaps its not a coincidence that Bush bears a resemblance to Alfred E Neuman of Mad Magazine.
And my benchmarks were on machines (286/20 and several 386s - remember, this is back in the neolithic) that also had doublespace or stacker removed, and 6.0 was slower, no question about it, specifically the disk-access routines. What I found amusing, though, was that, after putting things back to "normal" (no compression, dropping back to D0S 5, etc), I decided to benchmark the drives using a set of routines I wrote in assembler rather than C, and was able to achieve way OVER the disks' rated performance in terms of data transfer rate.
*yeah, I know, Borland still exists, but it sure as hell isn't the same Borland that we all knew and loved way back when.
Going to the site in your info reveals that you are a relative late-comer to the game, which explains why you didn't get bit by it - sitting around playing Doom isn't going to reveal the bug.
Most computers then were 2-3 year-old 286 and 386 boxes with 40-80 meg hard drives. Even a 50% increase in disk space was enough to get people to plop for it, as it was a LOT cheaper than a second hard disk.
These are people who bought a defective product that was heavily marketed for the very thing this class action was set to address. All the lawyers had to do was bring in the store ads, or the newspaper ads, or even the FUCKING RETAIL BOX!
And people wonder why I say most lawyers aren't worth shit.
The "mary had a little sheep" isn't original, neither are the "hickory dickory" or the "little mendel" ones, but some of them ("Old mother hubbard") are.
Its not too hard. Take any nursery rhyme or childhod ditty - I'm sure you can turn it around into something warped.
See, not hard to do an originalGuess the editors are [tt]rolling the readers - must be Troll Tuesday again.
Definitely excessive generosity on Wells' part - looked like someone who was out of their league or getting bamboozled. Seems to me that by this point most judges would have told them to stop with the word games in their briefs, for example, as it shows a lack of respect for the court and the process.
Good for you on the shorts :-)
At the time they wre first implanted, we didn't know as much about the problems caused by silicone leaking into the body as we do now. They were supposed to be as safe as saline. They're not. It's a real problem, and not just for women. Think of it - guy marries a woman, and finds out she needs a double mastectomy and is facing a lifetime of joint pain because her plastic boobies ruptured. Everyone is a loser.
People bought it - then were warned not to use the compression feature because of corruption. I know - I was one of the suckers who went back to 5.0 after getting fucked - and I'm not the only one.
Their job is NOT to appeal-proof cases. Their job is to judge. They do not need ALL the facts - just sufficient facts to be able to render a judgment. There have been sufficient facts for a LONG time. This should have been judged, and any appeal would probably be in the process of being briefed by now, or moot.
For pointing that you, you get a free fractured poem, just because its [tt]uesday:
So how does this not qualify as a "core feature" of that version?
Since they are unsafe, the proper route is to replace them with safer products before the damage is done. This is a quickly-determinable cost. "Potential damage" is also "potentially unlimited." Look at the suits over asbestos and implants that have sent their manufacturers into Chapter 11.