Well they said this was at Congressional Committee. Go look it up then. They have a audio record of the hearing, as well as some written statements. It only took me 2 minutes to find through Thomas.
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
Just because you aren't powering a Walkman with it, doesn't make the device not a battery. It doesn't have to have x amount of charge to be a battery. If it allows chemical energy to be converted to electrical energy, there's your battery.
I'd much rather they spend time and the money I'm paying for the product to optimize the hardware and drivers on all applications/games, not just one application/game that I may happen to use/play.
My main point was more along the lines of: just because Microsoft is saying something against themselves still doesn't make it *factually true*. Sure, MS may have given someone a bootload of cash to do a study, and that study said Linux was cheaper. That still doesn't mean anything. I was challenging the grandparent on such a bold statement that just because Microsoft said it, that meant it was "proof". Note that I don't make any claims as to which system is really cheaper, should be cheaper, or must be cheaper.
Read what she said. She said she heard it on TV (as did I), then she said it is part of American language. She never said it was part of American Language *because* it was on TV.
The sad thing is that they have just lost their last Linux server, which says a lot.
If this says so much, why don't you give us an example of what it "says"
Furthermore, as others have noted, a 5 minute logon time has nothing to do with Win2k and is all about a poorly maintained system, which will ruin any OS.
If Microsoft admits it, is that proof? So in cases where Microsoft speaks against Microsoft, their word is absolutely correct, but when Microsoft speaks for Microsoft, nothing can be trusted?
Yes, crappy VB apps have been written for Windows, and they still will be in the future, but to say that is the majority of what Windows users run, or that is available for Windows is irresponsible.
In a sense, you are correct. Market share != profit or profitability, and losing market share, *in some cases*, does not mean a loss of profit or sales.
But, people are only going to buy a computer they can get hardware, software and support for. Yes Apple provides all of these things, but they can't write every piece of software for a Mac, or make every piece of hardware, or consult on every installation of Apple hardware, no matter how hard they try. 3rd party vendors must be involved.
3rd party vendors base what platforms they will target and support based upon, you guessed it, market share. Why spend money to train your people on Apple stuff if there is only y% of the market using it? Why choose Apple for your systems if only y% of everyone else is using it? No I'm not saying that just because Apple has a low market share that they suck, but this is the way managers think, and they are the ones that say who will get the money for all new desktops, etc.
So while market share has no direct relationship on profit, you cannot sit around and think that your company is running fine if it has a low market share, and that share is dropping, no matter what your profit or sales numbers are.
PS: When you make claims like there have "often" been companies with declining market share yet rising sales and making profits, please provide an example. It shouldn't be hard if it happens all the time.
They don't realize that while the Mac costs twice as much, it also remains a viable computer twice as long (or longer)
I'd like some justification as to why and how an Apple laptop remains viable "twice as long or longer" than a non-Apple laptop. The technology is going to get faster and larger no matter what platform you use. Furthermore, let's keep this non-OS specific.
This may be great for a private school, but at a public school (which I attend) the University cannot go around doing whatever it feels like, especially when money from student fees goes to support the infrastructure.
To provide more empirical data to the other reply, Rutgers University's policy is to allow 2GB over any 7 day period downloading, and 512MB over any 7 day period uploading. This makes it pretty much impossible to serve anything but small files (they but the dorms into private address space last year as well), but allows enough room to get most things done on the internet, legit or illegal. And no, it doesn't matter if you spent your 2GB downloading Linux ISOs. The policy is meant to save bandwidth, not stop piracy.
If you exceed the limit, you cannot access the internet for a week. University resources may still be accessed, which allows for basic internet access through X or port forwarding, etc.
Students are given access to the internet in their dorm rooms to assist them with their studies.
That's just not true. Students are given internet access because it has become a modern convenience. Are students given phone access for studies? What about Cable TV, or electricity? If internet access was truly for studies only, you would see it limited to computer labs and research areas only.
This provides these baby bell ISP's with a MSoft-ish method for bullying users into using their products (as opposed to just competing on the basis of quality).
You missed a critical plot point in American Beauty. Before he leaves his office job, Kevin Spacey's character negotiates for a year of severance pay, with benefits.
I hope you didn't go to a business school and come out with that "business sense." Yes, Microsoft has a lot of power over the people who use, or are forced to use, their products. Most people don't pay for Windows. It comes on the computer, and is included in the cost of the computer, so it is a little more transparent. If Microsoft started charging for updates (which, as I'm sure you are aware, can be quite frequent), all of these users would suddenly be paying Microsoft directly, something which they probably haven't done. You can bet there would be a large public backlash against charging for an update to fix the software you have already paid for.
Sorry, it's just that I can only handle so many windows-related jokes at once, and underestimated the ability of some people to be amused by the same joke 8 times each day in every slashdot story. I also underestimated the amount of people who thought they were funny by retelling the same 8 year old jokes. Or maybe I overestimated your ability to contribute to a discussion with something meaningful, or make a comment without attempting to make some super-witty, deep, sarcastic, anti-microsoft comment. I'll try to do better next time!
And for the benefit of someone below.. </sarcasm>?
Slashdot Mirror
The ESD shouldn't have affected the HD. The charge would have stayed on the outside metal casing of the HD... theoretically.
I'd like to see a direct quote, please.
Well they said this was at Congressional Committee. Go look it up then. They have a audio record of the hearing, as well as some written statements. It only took me 2 minutes to find through Thomas.
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
Just because you aren't powering a Walkman with it, doesn't make the device not a battery. It doesn't have to have x amount of charge to be a battery. If it allows chemical energy to be converted to electrical energy, there's your battery.
I'd much rather they spend time and the money I'm paying for the product to optimize the hardware and drivers on all applications/games, not just one application/game that I may happen to use/play.
My main point was more along the lines of: just because Microsoft is saying something against themselves still doesn't make it *factually true*. Sure, MS may have given someone a bootload of cash to do a study, and that study said Linux was cheaper. That still doesn't mean anything. I was challenging the grandparent on such a bold statement that just because Microsoft said it, that meant it was "proof". Note that I don't make any claims as to which system is really cheaper, should be cheaper, or must be cheaper.
Read what she said. She said she heard it on TV (as did I), then she said it is part of American language. She never said it was part of American Language *because* it was on TV.
I dont think anyone would want to risk wandering around Los Alamos.
Yeah there aren't any terrorists willing to give their lives for their "cause" at all!
The sad thing is that they have just lost their last Linux server, which says a lot.
If this says so much, why don't you give us an example of what it "says"
Furthermore, as others have noted, a 5 minute logon time has nothing to do with Win2k and is all about a poorly maintained system, which will ruin any OS.
If Microsoft admits it, is that proof? So in cases where Microsoft speaks against Microsoft, their word is absolutely correct, but when Microsoft speaks for Microsoft, nothing can be trusted?
Whoever modded this Funny is truly ignorant and is renforcing the stereotypes in today's society.
[sniff, sniff] I smell a laptop Linux user!
Couldn't be further from the truth. Not only do I not own a laptop, my one desktop has Windows 2000 installed on it.
My post was referring to desktop Macs, and viability relative to Windows PCs
OK, why are Mac desktops so much more viable then?
Now you may hate the entire country of France, but they have a saying, "Der er biler paa striben i aften"
Now that's some crazy lookin' French.
windows is full of crappy, vb shareware apps.
Pure FUD right back at ya.
Yes, crappy VB apps have been written for Windows, and they still will be in the future, but to say that is the majority of what Windows users run, or that is available for Windows is irresponsible.
In a sense, you are correct. Market share != profit or profitability, and losing market share, *in some cases*, does not mean a loss of profit or sales.
But, people are only going to buy a computer they can get hardware, software and support for. Yes Apple provides all of these things, but they can't write every piece of software for a Mac, or make every piece of hardware, or consult on every installation of Apple hardware, no matter how hard they try. 3rd party vendors must be involved.
3rd party vendors base what platforms they will target and support based upon, you guessed it, market share. Why spend money to train your people on Apple stuff if there is only y% of the market using it? Why choose Apple for your systems if only y% of everyone else is using it? No I'm not saying that just because Apple has a low market share that they suck, but this is the way managers think, and they are the ones that say who will get the money for all new desktops, etc.
So while market share has no direct relationship on profit, you cannot sit around and think that your company is running fine if it has a low market share, and that share is dropping, no matter what your profit or sales numbers are.
PS: When you make claims like there have "often" been companies with declining market share yet rising sales and making profits, please provide an example. It shouldn't be hard if it happens all the time.
They don't realize that while the Mac costs twice as much, it also remains a viable computer twice as long (or longer)
I'd like some justification as to why and how an Apple laptop remains viable "twice as long or longer" than a non-Apple laptop. The technology is going to get faster and larger no matter what platform you use. Furthermore, let's keep this non-OS specific.
You're right! There's absolutely no way they could transmit a 2-3 minute cartoon across the internet for easy viewing. Kill em all!
This may be great for a private school, but at a public school (which I attend) the University cannot go around doing whatever it feels like, especially when money from student fees goes to support the infrastructure.
They do make a distinction between local and remote, and I believe there are local Mandrake and Redhat mirrors.
To provide more empirical data to the other reply, Rutgers University's policy is to allow 2GB over any 7 day period downloading, and 512MB over any 7 day period uploading. This makes it pretty much impossible to serve anything but small files (they but the dorms into private address space last year as well), but allows enough room to get most things done on the internet, legit or illegal. And no, it doesn't matter if you spent your 2GB downloading Linux ISOs. The policy is meant to save bandwidth, not stop piracy.
If you exceed the limit, you cannot access the internet for a week. University resources may still be accessed, which allows for basic internet access through X or port forwarding, etc.
Students are given access to the internet in their dorm rooms to assist them with their studies.
That's just not true. Students are given internet access because it has become a modern convenience. Are students given phone access for studies? What about Cable TV, or electricity? If internet access was truly for studies only, you would see it limited to computer labs and research areas only.
Congrats, you repeated what was already in the intro to the article!
This provides these baby bell ISP's with a MSoft-ish method for bullying users into using their products (as opposed to just competing on the basis of quality).
Sounds pretty capitalist to me..
You missed a critical plot point in American Beauty. Before he leaves his office job, Kevin Spacey's character negotiates for a year of severance pay, with benefits.
I hope you didn't go to a business school and come out with that "business sense." Yes, Microsoft has a lot of power over the people who use, or are forced to use, their products. Most people don't pay for Windows. It comes on the computer, and is included in the cost of the computer, so it is a little more transparent. If Microsoft started charging for updates (which, as I'm sure you are aware, can be quite frequent), all of these users would suddenly be paying Microsoft directly, something which they probably haven't done. You can bet there would be a large public backlash against charging for an update to fix the software you have already paid for.
Sorry, it's just that I can only handle so many windows-related jokes at once, and underestimated the ability of some people to be amused by the same joke 8 times each day in every slashdot story. I also underestimated the amount of people who thought they were funny by retelling the same 8 year old jokes. Or maybe I overestimated your ability to contribute to a discussion with something meaningful, or make a comment without attempting to make some super-witty, deep, sarcastic, anti-microsoft comment. I'll try to do better next time!
And for the benefit of someone below.. </sarcasm>?