Guest Frank Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Alias wrote: > The formula that helped Microsoft attain vast power and wealth was: > > 1. Make the non-standard Office Suite the soup du jour on every table. > This worked, except for the huge legal field, who continue with Word > Perfect, and the 25% who have discovered Open Office/Star Office. > > 2. Let 'piracy' run rampant, until everyone is 'hooked' on their drug. > Then, the continued habit will be very expensive. > > 3. Suppress all instances of mention of alternative OSes, better, or > less expensive products, by a campaign of media lies and distortions. > > 4. Buy the press, bribe the media. Insert $1 billion in advertising > and 'white papers'. Offer free stuff to independent bloggers. > > As soon as some customers people in the media objected, and stated that > the Emperor has no clothes, the gig was up. PCWorld Editor has resigned > rather than succumb to bribery, Huge corporations, hundreds of > governments, tens of millions of individuals, have switched their > platforms and products to avoid mediocrity. > > The OEM lock-in has crumbled. System76, Microtel, WalMart, Lenovo, Dell, > had been shipping GNU/Linux and making their fortunes. Others are > jumping onboard the gold train. > > My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then on to > the 9 to 30 minute full install. > > If you had files in a previous OS on hard drive, do back them up to safe > media. > > No more 'Tense Tuesdays' hoping the latest garbage from Microsoft > doesn't hose the entire drive! > You're delirious as usual and still spreading lies. Grow up! Frank
Guest Ron Martell Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game none <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote: > >Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise Beta >Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good mass >marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was duped. >caver1 One huge factor was the failure of Beta to deliver a 2 hour capacity tape, meaning that users had to use 2 tapes in order to record a movie broadcast. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest caver1 Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Mark wrote: > "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message > news:46cc35a3$0$16436$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Mark wrote: >>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>> news:46cb09e8$0$4035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Alias wrote: >>>>> HeyBub wrote: >>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>> My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then on to >>>>>>> the 9 to 30 minute full install. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I seem to recall someone claiming you also recommended Beta Max, Earth >>>>>> Shoes, used Edsels, and desktop fusion as being the next big things. >>>>> Actually, Beta Max was very successful in some countries. >>>> >>>> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise Beta >>>> Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good mass >>>> marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was duped. >>>> caver1 >>> At least Beta Max was, in fact, a superior technology - OpenOffice, ne' >>> StarOffice, is just another also ran. >> >> Not really. They are getting better. The point is why not both? Most >> consumers don't need everything that MS products supply at a high cost. >> So let people have a choice and let these programs interact. The only >> reason not to is because MS knows that these programs are good and if they >> could interact with each other MS would lose control. >> caver1 > > Are they? Well, OK, I guess that OpenOffice is better than it was when Sun > first bought it. As I recall, the first version I download was an > abomination that did everything good software wasn't supposed to do, such as > take over the desktop. The last version I downloaded, which was a v2.?, > failed to properly load a simple word doc that used outline formating. > "Getting better" isn't enough if OpenOffice is seeking to attract current > users of MS products. For that to happen, OpenOffice needs to at least equal > the MS product. OpenOffice is just fine, however, for new users with little > need to work with MS > > Even if OpenOffice caught up with or exceeded Office, OpenOffice would still > need to provide user support comparable to what MS provides for its Office > product. For instance, every month or so I get an email, "Microsoft Inside > Office newsletter," that contains links to useful downloads, tutorials, and > templates. The latest includes links to "back-to-school" clipart and > templates. It also includes a "howto" that helps one create an access DB > from an excel workbook.... nothing too complicated and it's all geared > toward real endusers. One really only need to compare http://www.openoffice.org > with http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx to get an idea of the > real problem OpenOffice has to meet. > > Is Office expensive? Dang!. <G> Seriously, I spent hundreds of dollars for > Office98 Pro way back when it first came out. I was still using Office 98 in > 2006 with no problems. When a daughter went to University, I did upgrade to > Office 2003, but I'm not really sure that I "had to." My view is the package > is cheap by most real measures as the expense is easily spread out over > years. When one compares the price with, oh, say the average cost of a > console game, Office is cheap, indeed. > > Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, it's > cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to real endusers > that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy products just fail > to provide. > > Do you guys ever stop to think that the "if only MS would let us" excuse is > wearing thin? MS isn't your mother. MS works very hard to maintain their > position by providing good products and good service at a reasonable price. > > > I never said MS products were no good. They are. Their marketing and business process is totally screwed. Windows was crap when it first started. It got better. Same with any software that is worth its salt. And yes If you want to you can get support for OpenOffice. You just have to look more. Whats wrong with that. I use OpenOffice all the time and no it does't take over the desktop. What is wrong here and it almost as bad on the Linux side, but not quite, is there is room for both. If you want to be paying constantly, fine. If you don't fine. And MS does try to stop interoperability. caver1
Guest caver1 Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Ron Martell wrote: > none <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote: > >> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise Beta >> Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good mass >> marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was duped. >> caver1 > > One huge factor was the failure of Beta to deliver a 2 hour capacity > tape, meaning that users had to use 2 tapes in order to record a movie > broadcast. > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada True to begin with but Beta did introduce 2 and 3 hour tapes. caver1
Guest Mark Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message news:46cc7e33$0$31852$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mark wrote: >> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >> news:46cc35a3$0$16436$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Mark wrote: >>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>> news:46cb09e8$0$4035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>> HeyBub wrote: >>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>> My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then on >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the 9 to 30 minute full install. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I seem to recall someone claiming you also recommended Beta Max, >>>>>>> Earth Shoes, used Edsels, and desktop fusion as being the next big >>>>>>> things. >>>>>> Actually, Beta Max was very successful in some countries. >>>>> >>>>> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise Beta >>>>> Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good mass >>>>> marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was duped. >>>>> caver1 >>>> At least Beta Max was, in fact, a superior technology - OpenOffice, ne' >>>> StarOffice, is just another also ran. >>> >>> Not really. They are getting better. The point is why not both? Most >>> consumers don't need everything that MS products supply at a high cost. >>> So let people have a choice and let these programs interact. The only >>> reason not to is because MS knows that these programs are good and if >>> they could interact with each other MS would lose control. >>> caver1 >> >> Are they? Well, OK, I guess that OpenOffice is better than it was when >> Sun first bought it. As I recall, the first version I download was an >> abomination that did everything good software wasn't supposed to do, such >> as take over the desktop. The last version I downloaded, which was a >> v2.?, failed to properly load a simple word doc that used outline >> formating. "Getting better" isn't enough if OpenOffice is seeking to >> attract current users of MS products. For that to happen, OpenOffice >> needs to at least equal the MS product. OpenOffice is just fine, however, >> for new users with little need to work with MS >> >> Even if OpenOffice caught up with or exceeded Office, OpenOffice would >> still need to provide user support comparable to what MS provides for its >> Office product. For instance, every month or so I get an email, >> "Microsoft Inside Office newsletter," that contains links to useful >> downloads, tutorials, and templates. The latest includes links to >> "back-to-school" clipart and templates. It also includes a "howto" that >> helps one create an access DB from an excel workbook.... nothing too >> complicated and it's all geared toward real endusers. One really only >> need to compare http://www.openoffice.org with >> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx to get an idea of the real >> problem OpenOffice has to meet. >> >> Is Office expensive? Dang!. <G> Seriously, I spent hundreds of dollars >> for Office98 Pro way back when it first came out. I was still using >> Office 98 in 2006 with no problems. When a daughter went to University, I >> did upgrade to Office 2003, but I'm not really sure that I "had to." My >> view is the package is cheap by most real measures as the expense is >> easily spread out over years. When one compares the price with, oh, say >> the average cost of a console game, Office is cheap, indeed. >> >> Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, >> it's cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to real >> endusers that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy >> products just fail to provide. >> >> Do you guys ever stop to think that the "if only MS would let us" excuse >> is wearing thin? MS isn't your mother. MS works very hard to maintain >> their position by providing good products and good service at a >> reasonable price. >> >> >> > > > I never said MS products were no good. They are. Their marketing and > business process is totally screwed. Windows was crap when it first > started. It got better. Same with any software that is worth its salt. > And yes If you want to you can get support for OpenOffice. You just have > to look more. Whats wrong with that. I use OpenOffice all the time and no > it does't take over the desktop. > What is wrong here and it almost as bad on the Linux side, but not quite, > is there is room for both. If you want to be paying constantly, fine. If > you don't fine. > And MS does try to stop interoperability. > caver1 Looks to me like MS's marketing and business process is just fine. It certainly seems to work for both the corporation and the bulk of its customers. Oh, hell, Windows was OK when it first came out. So were, Lisa, MacOS and Geos. Indeed, when one accounts for hardware limitations of those times, then one would likely agree that all those early guis were quite remarkable. It may be useful, however, to point out those were things that happened decades ago and, further, those were things that were essentially "firsts." Staroffice was already a mature product when purchased by Sun and released to the Open Office project so there's no use in pretending its a "from-scratch" effort. If you're a true believer then there's nothing wrong with having to really work at searches in efforts to find help. There are better ways to waste one's time though. At some point, even semi-believing end-users start to account their own time as too valuable to waste doing things not required by the duped masses. MS does what? I dunno' 'bout that. Indeed, I don't seem to have any big problems operating within and without the boundaries of MS. Well... maybe I do, since I don't think office with directly read Open Office docs, but OO handles basic MS docs so it's not a problem, is it? Claims that Microsoft doesn't embrace "interoperability" are specious. Indeed, I'll opine that MS embraces interoperability to a greater extend that the Open Software Groups that seem to most often raise the issue when it comes to something MS's software does that they don't know how to do. Yep... the "why can't we all get along" type of argument sounds good, doesn't it? But doesn't that argue lose its utility when this thread was started by a linuxy type or a Gnurd that just felt the need to hop on to a MS forum just so he could tell how stupid we are? <G>
Guest caver1 Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Mark wrote: > "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message > news:46cc7e33$0$31852$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Mark wrote: >>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>> news:46cc35a3$0$16436$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Mark wrote: >>>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>>> news:46cb09e8$0$4035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>> HeyBub wrote: >>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>> My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then on >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the 9 to 30 minute full install. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I seem to recall someone claiming you also recommended Beta Max, >>>>>>>> Earth Shoes, used Edsels, and desktop fusion as being the next big >>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>> Actually, Beta Max was very successful in some countries. >>>>>> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise Beta >>>>>> Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good mass >>>>>> marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was duped. >>>>>> caver1 >>>>> At least Beta Max was, in fact, a superior technology - OpenOffice, ne' >>>>> StarOffice, is just another also ran. >>>> Not really. They are getting better. The point is why not both? Most >>>> consumers don't need everything that MS products supply at a high cost. >>>> So let people have a choice and let these programs interact. The only >>>> reason not to is because MS knows that these programs are good and if >>>> they could interact with each other MS would lose control. >>>> caver1 >>> Are they? Well, OK, I guess that OpenOffice is better than it was when >>> Sun first bought it. As I recall, the first version I download was an >>> abomination that did everything good software wasn't supposed to do, such >>> as take over the desktop. The last version I downloaded, which was a >>> v2.?, failed to properly load a simple word doc that used outline >>> formating. "Getting better" isn't enough if OpenOffice is seeking to >>> attract current users of MS products. For that to happen, OpenOffice >>> needs to at least equal the MS product. OpenOffice is just fine, however, >>> for new users with little need to work with MS >>> >>> Even if OpenOffice caught up with or exceeded Office, OpenOffice would >>> still need to provide user support comparable to what MS provides for its >>> Office product. For instance, every month or so I get an email, >>> "Microsoft Inside Office newsletter," that contains links to useful >>> downloads, tutorials, and templates. The latest includes links to >>> "back-to-school" clipart and templates. It also includes a "howto" that >>> helps one create an access DB from an excel workbook.... nothing too >>> complicated and it's all geared toward real endusers. One really only >>> need to compare http://www.openoffice.org with >>> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx to get an idea of the real >>> problem OpenOffice has to meet. >>> >>> Is Office expensive? Dang!. <G> Seriously, I spent hundreds of dollars >>> for Office98 Pro way back when it first came out. I was still using >>> Office 98 in 2006 with no problems. When a daughter went to University, I >>> did upgrade to Office 2003, but I'm not really sure that I "had to." My >>> view is the package is cheap by most real measures as the expense is >>> easily spread out over years. When one compares the price with, oh, say >>> the average cost of a console game, Office is cheap, indeed. >>> >>> Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, >>> it's cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to real >>> endusers that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy >>> products just fail to provide. >>> >>> Do you guys ever stop to think that the "if only MS would let us" excuse >>> is wearing thin? MS isn't your mother. MS works very hard to maintain >>> their position by providing good products and good service at a >>> reasonable price. >>> >>> >>> >> >> I never said MS products were no good. They are. Their marketing and >> business process is totally screwed. Windows was crap when it first >> started. It got better. Same with any software that is worth its salt. >> And yes If you want to you can get support for OpenOffice. You just have >> to look more. Whats wrong with that. I use OpenOffice all the time and no >> it does't take over the desktop. >> What is wrong here and it almost as bad on the Linux side, but not quite, >> is there is room for both. If you want to be paying constantly, fine. If >> you don't fine. >> And MS does try to stop interoperability. >> caver1 > > Looks to me like MS's marketing and business process is just fine. It > certainly seems to work for both the corporation and the bulk of its > customers. > > Oh, hell, Windows was OK when it first came out. So were, Lisa, MacOS and > Geos. Indeed, when one accounts for hardware limitations of those times, > then one would likely agree that all those early guis were quite remarkable. > It may be useful, however, to point out those were things that happened > decades ago and, further, those were things that were essentially "firsts." > Staroffice was already a mature product when purchased by Sun and released > to the Open Office project so there's no use in pretending its a > "from-scratch" effort. > > If you're a true believer then there's nothing wrong with having to really > work at searches in efforts to find help. There are better ways to waste > one's time though. At some point, even semi-believing end-users start to > account their own time as too valuable to waste doing things not required by > the duped masses. > True believer? in software? Get real. I spend as much time on searches for MS products as I do Linux. Yes linux has a way to go. But at the same time MS's want of total control is irksome. > MS does what? I dunno' 'bout that. Indeed, I don't seem to have any big > problems operating within and without the boundaries of MS. Well... maybe I > do, since I don't think office with directly read Open Office docs, but OO > handles basic MS docs so it's not a problem, is it? Claims that Microsoft > doesn't embrace "interoperability" are specious. Indeed, I'll opine that MS > embraces interoperability to a greater extend that the Open Software Groups > that seem to most often raise the issue when it comes to something MS's > software does that they don't know how to do. > > Yep... the "why can't we all get along" type of argument sounds good, > doesn't it? But doesn't that argue lose its utility when this thread was > started by a linuxy type or a Gnurd that just felt the need to hop on to a > MS forum just so he could tell how stupid we are? <G> > > > OOxml. As one example. > OOXML recommends Windows Metafiles or > ● > Enhanced Metafiles instead of using ISO/IEC 8632 > or W3C SVG. > WMF are Windows-only proprietary formats > ● MS wants this a standard. Standard means used by all for a base line conformity. If Windows Metafiles are proprietary how can they be used by all? When MS says they will defend/enforce their patents/copywrites. This is only one example.
Guest Allen Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Mark wrote: <snip> > > Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, it's > cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to real endusers > that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy products just fail > to provide. > Is it possible that alternatives to Office don't require as much support as Office? MS has a way with hiding "features" in places the average user would never think of looking, and quite often the built-in defaults are counter to what the average user wants. I have been using Word since 1985 (release 3, as I recall) for the simple reason that it was the first WP program with built-in support for LaserJet printers and I got tired of writing routines to support the LJ in other apps. My wife, though, has been using Word for less than half that time and also has not been using computers nearly as long as me and has constant problems with what Word sometimes does with her documents. Allen
Guest Mark Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game "Allen" <allen@nothere.net> wrote in message news:46cc9d11$0$28830$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mark wrote: > <snip> >> >> Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, >> it's cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to real >> endusers that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy >> products just fail to provide. >> > Is it possible that alternatives to Office don't require as much support > as Office? MS has a way with hiding "features" in places the average user > would never think of looking, and quite often the built-in defaults are > counter to what the average user wants. I have been using Word since 1985 > (release 3, as I recall) for the simple reason that it was the first WP > program with built-in support for LaserJet printers and I got tired of > writing routines to support the LJ in other apps. My wife, though, has > been using Word for less than half that time and also has not been using > computers nearly as long as me and has constant problems with what Word > sometimes does with her documents. > Allen It's possible, but not likely. More precisely, any comparable product will, of necessity, have approximately the same level of complexity and, thus, will need a similar level of help and support. MS provides support on multiple levels. For instance, I find it's useful to suggest to neophytes that they keep the "office assistant" turned on and ask it questions even before they go searching through the help system proper. Many times the office assistant will provide the needed answer. If it doesn't, however, I then point the user to the help contents. Let me give an example... my wife's is a K12 educator, so one thing a teacher might be interested in is making a calendar. If she asked me for help, I'd say "Darlin', ask the office assistant something like "create a calendar" and see what it says." Office Assistant returns a slew of appropriate answers. Topmost is "Create a Calendar (Help using Wizards) Next listed are a number of templates that deal with calendars. For my money, the wizard sounds like what's needed, but I suppose others might scan the list of ready made templates. The end of the list contains "other places to look." Among the choices here are "clip art and media," "get answers from other users,"research," and "Knowledge base search." In an effort to be fair, I've installed the latest OOwin (v 2.21.) Lets see, I can't find the equivalent of the Office Assistant. Bummer. OK, so I open up the help system and look at the contents...looking.... looking..... looking....oh, the heck with it, let me see if the index has a reference to "calendar"... nope... Ok, well maybe something under "creat???."...bingo! there are some entries under "creating" but nothing about creating a calendar. Bummer. OK, let's do a search on "calendar" - two hits, "number format codes" and "more controls." OK, so I've been screwing around with OO's help and still don't have an answer. What's next? Where do I go for help? Maybe Google? Ok, so part of the difference I see is that MS has "anticpated" what so called "real users" might want to do. It's a subtle difference, I think. MS anticipates and the Open Software community mostly just "reacts." MS also provides substantial online support, tools, and training, as a quick look at their Office Online site (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx ) will confirm. I can't find anything at the Open Office project that even begins to compare. MS also targets special interest groups. For instance, consider their site for educators at http://www.microsoft.com/education/default.mspx. Pretty impressive, eh? And then, of course, MS offers support for those that want to develop products for Office as a quick look at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/default.aspx shows. I could go on, but I won't. Instead, I'll just offer to readers that there's probably quite a few office suites that can do what Office does, at least after a fashion. At the same time, however, I'll suggest that it's really MS's superior support that makes the difference when productivity is the issue. I'll also suggest that MS spends great amounts of both time and money to ensure their support is the best it can be. MS also expends effort on "classes" of users. For instance,
Guest Mark Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message news:46cc9944$0$11028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mark wrote: >> "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message >> news:46cc7e33$0$31852$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Mark wrote: >>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>> news:46cc35a3$0$16436$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>> Mark wrote: >>>>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>>>> news:46cb09e8$0$4035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>> HeyBub wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>>> My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then >>>>>>>>>> on to >>>>>>>>>> the 9 to 30 minute full install. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I seem to recall someone claiming you also recommended Beta Max, >>>>>>>>> Earth Shoes, used Edsels, and desktop fusion as being the next big >>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>> Actually, Beta Max was very successful in some countries. >>>>>>> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise >>>>>>> Beta Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good >>>>>>> mass marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was >>>>>>> duped. >>>>>>> caver1 >>>>>> At least Beta Max was, in fact, a superior technology - OpenOffice, >>>>>> ne' StarOffice, is just another also ran. >>>>> Not really. They are getting better. The point is why not both? Most >>>>> consumers don't need everything that MS products supply at a high >>>>> cost. >>>>> So let people have a choice and let these programs interact. The only >>>>> reason not to is because MS knows that these programs are good and if >>>>> they could interact with each other MS would lose control. >>>>> caver1 >>>> Are they? Well, OK, I guess that OpenOffice is better than it was when >>>> Sun first bought it. As I recall, the first version I download was an >>>> abomination that did everything good software wasn't supposed to do, >>>> such as take over the desktop. The last version I downloaded, which was >>>> a v2.?, failed to properly load a simple word doc that used outline >>>> formating. "Getting better" isn't enough if OpenOffice is seeking to >>>> attract current users of MS products. For that to happen, OpenOffice >>>> needs to at least equal the MS product. OpenOffice is just fine, >>>> however, for new users with little need to work with MS >>>> >>>> Even if OpenOffice caught up with or exceeded Office, OpenOffice would >>>> still need to provide user support comparable to what MS provides for >>>> its Office product. For instance, every month or so I get an email, >>>> "Microsoft Inside Office newsletter," that contains links to useful >>>> downloads, tutorials, and templates. The latest includes links to >>>> "back-to-school" clipart and templates. It also includes a "howto" that >>>> helps one create an access DB from an excel workbook.... nothing too >>>> complicated and it's all geared toward real endusers. One really only >>>> need to compare http://www.openoffice.org with >>>> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx to get an idea of the >>>> real problem OpenOffice has to meet. >>>> >>>> Is Office expensive? Dang!. <G> Seriously, I spent hundreds of dollars >>>> for Office98 Pro way back when it first came out. I was still using >>>> Office 98 in 2006 with no problems. When a daughter went to University, >>>> I did upgrade to Office 2003, but I'm not really sure that I "had to." >>>> My view is the package is cheap by most real measures as the expense is >>>> easily spread out over years. When one compares the price with, oh, say >>>> the average cost of a console game, Office is cheap, indeed. >>>> >>>> Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, >>>> it's cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to >>>> real endusers that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy >>>> products just fail to provide. >>>> >>>> Do you guys ever stop to think that the "if only MS would let us" >>>> excuse is wearing thin? MS isn't your mother. MS works very hard to >>>> maintain their position by providing good products and good service at >>>> a reasonable price. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I never said MS products were no good. They are. Their marketing and >>> business process is totally screwed. Windows was crap when it first >>> started. It got better. Same with any software that is worth its salt. >>> And yes If you want to you can get support for OpenOffice. You just have >>> to look more. Whats wrong with that. I use OpenOffice all the time and >>> no it does't take over the desktop. >>> What is wrong here and it almost as bad on the Linux side, but not >>> quite, is there is room for both. If you want to be paying constantly, >>> fine. If you don't fine. >>> And MS does try to stop interoperability. >>> caver1 >> >> Looks to me like MS's marketing and business process is just fine. It >> certainly seems to work for both the corporation and the bulk of its >> customers. >> >> Oh, hell, Windows was OK when it first came out. So were, Lisa, MacOS and >> Geos. Indeed, when one accounts for hardware limitations of those times, >> then one would likely agree that all those early guis were quite >> remarkable. It may be useful, however, to point out those were things >> that happened decades ago and, further, those were things that were >> essentially "firsts." Staroffice was already a mature product when >> purchased by Sun and released to the Open Office project so there's no >> use in pretending its a "from-scratch" effort. >> >> If you're a true believer then there's nothing wrong with having to >> really work at searches in efforts to find help. There are better ways to >> waste one's time though. At some point, even semi-believing end-users >> start to account their own time as too valuable to waste doing things not >> required by the duped masses. >> > > True believer? in software? Get real. > I spend as much time on searches for MS products as I do Linux. > Yes linux has a way to go. But at the same time MS's want of total control > is irksome. > >> MS does what? I dunno' 'bout that. Indeed, I don't seem to have any big >> problems operating within and without the boundaries of MS. Well... maybe >> I do, since I don't think office with directly read Open Office docs, but >> OO handles basic MS docs so it's not a problem, is it? Claims that >> Microsoft doesn't embrace "interoperability" are specious. Indeed, I'll >> opine that MS embraces interoperability to a greater extend that the Open >> Software Groups that seem to most often raise the issue when it comes to >> something MS's software does that they don't know how to do. >> >> Yep... the "why can't we all get along" type of argument sounds good, >> doesn't it? But doesn't that argue lose its utility when this thread was >> started by a linuxy type or a Gnurd that just felt the need to hop on to >> a MS forum just so he could tell how stupid we are? <G> >> >> >> > > > OOxml. As one example. > OOXML recommends Windows Metafiles or >> ? >> Enhanced Metafiles instead of using ISO/IEC 8632 >> or W3C SVG. >> WMF are Windows-only proprietary formats >> ? > > MS wants this a standard. Standard means used by all for a base line > conformity. If Windows Metafiles are proprietary how can they be used by > all? When MS says they will defend/enforce their patents/copywrites. > This is only one example. That would be "true believer" as one that believes in the Open Software/GNU doctrines. Well, when I compare the help available for Open Office with that available for MS Office, I find the Open Office help to be relatively "non-exsistent." I also find that just going to the Open Office Site requires me to submit to doses of anti-ms rhetoric. I never could figure out how that rhetoric was supposed to solve any real problems. If ya'll don't want MS to set any standards then tell them to bugger off - all MS needs is some evidence that they "tried." Or is it that you think you have a claim on their intellectual property? Or is it that you want to limit MS to doing only what the least of their competitors can do? .
Guest caver1 Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 Re: Redmond's Con Game Mark wrote: > "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message > news:46cc9944$0$11028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Mark wrote: >>> "caver1" <caver@caver1.com> wrote in message >>> news:46cc7e33$0$31852$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Mark wrote: >>>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>>> news:46cc35a3$0$16436$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>> Mark wrote: >>>>>>> "none" <""caver\"@(none)"> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:46cb09e8$0$4035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>> HeyBub wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> My recommendation is http://ubuntu.org and try the liveCD, then >>>>>>>>>>> on to >>>>>>>>>>> the 9 to 30 minute full install. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall someone claiming you also recommended Beta Max, >>>>>>>>>> Earth Shoes, used Edsels, and desktop fusion as being the next big >>>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>> Actually, Beta Max was very successful in some countries. >>>>>>>> Beta Max is a good example of what marketing can do. Quality wise >>>>>>>> Beta Max was far superior to VHS. Most pros bought Beta Max. Good >>>>>>>> mass marketing was the only reason VHS finally won. The consumer was >>>>>>>> duped. >>>>>>>> caver1 >>>>>>> At least Beta Max was, in fact, a superior technology - OpenOffice, >>>>>>> ne' StarOffice, is just another also ran. >>>>>> Not really. They are getting better. The point is why not both? Most >>>>>> consumers don't need everything that MS products supply at a high >>>>>> cost. >>>>>> So let people have a choice and let these programs interact. The only >>>>>> reason not to is because MS knows that these programs are good and if >>>>>> they could interact with each other MS would lose control. >>>>>> caver1 >>>>> Are they? Well, OK, I guess that OpenOffice is better than it was when >>>>> Sun first bought it. As I recall, the first version I download was an >>>>> abomination that did everything good software wasn't supposed to do, >>>>> such as take over the desktop. The last version I downloaded, which was >>>>> a v2.?, failed to properly load a simple word doc that used outline >>>>> formating. "Getting better" isn't enough if OpenOffice is seeking to >>>>> attract current users of MS products. For that to happen, OpenOffice >>>>> needs to at least equal the MS product. OpenOffice is just fine, >>>>> however, for new users with little need to work with MS >>>>> >>>>> Even if OpenOffice caught up with or exceeded Office, OpenOffice would >>>>> still need to provide user support comparable to what MS provides for >>>>> its Office product. For instance, every month or so I get an email, >>>>> "Microsoft Inside Office newsletter," that contains links to useful >>>>> downloads, tutorials, and templates. The latest includes links to >>>>> "back-to-school" clipart and templates. It also includes a "howto" that >>>>> helps one create an access DB from an excel workbook.... nothing too >>>>> complicated and it's all geared toward real endusers. One really only >>>>> need to compare http://www.openoffice.org with >>>>> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx to get an idea of the >>>>> real problem OpenOffice has to meet. >>>>> >>>>> Is Office expensive? Dang!. <G> Seriously, I spent hundreds of dollars >>>>> for Office98 Pro way back when it first came out. I was still using >>>>> Office 98 in 2006 with no problems. When a daughter went to University, >>>>> I did upgrade to Office 2003, but I'm not really sure that I "had to." >>>>> My view is the package is cheap by most real measures as the expense is >>>>> easily spread out over years. When one compares the price with, oh, say >>>>> the average cost of a console game, Office is cheap, indeed. >>>>> >>>>> Still, it's not as cheap as OpenOffice. Well, maybe, in the long run, >>>>> it's cheaper than OpenOffice because MS offers practical support to >>>>> real endusers that OpenOffice and, for that matter, most GNUey & Linuxy >>>>> products just fail to provide. >>>>> >>>>> Do you guys ever stop to think that the "if only MS would let us" >>>>> excuse is wearing thin? MS isn't your mother. MS works very hard to >>>>> maintain their position by providing good products and good service at >>>>> a reasonable price. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I never said MS products were no good. They are. Their marketing and >>>> business process is totally screwed. Windows was crap when it first >>>> started. It got better. Same with any software that is worth its salt. >>>> And yes If you want to you can get support for OpenOffice. You just have >>>> to look more. Whats wrong with that. I use OpenOffice all the time and >>>> no it does't take over the desktop. >>>> What is wrong here and it almost as bad on the Linux side, but not >>>> quite, is there is room for both. If you want to be paying constantly, >>>> fine. If you don't fine. >>>> And MS does try to stop interoperability. >>>> caver1 >>> Looks to me like MS's marketing and business process is just fine. It >>> certainly seems to work for both the corporation and the bulk of its >>> customers. >>> >>> Oh, hell, Windows was OK when it first came out. So were, Lisa, MacOS and >>> Geos. Indeed, when one accounts for hardware limitations of those times, >>> then one would likely agree that all those early guis were quite >>> remarkable. It may be useful, however, to point out those were things >>> that happened decades ago and, further, those were things that were >>> essentially "firsts." Staroffice was already a mature product when >>> purchased by Sun and released to the Open Office project so there's no >>> use in pretending its a "from-scratch" effort. >>> >>> If you're a true believer then there's nothing wrong with having to >>> really work at searches in efforts to find help. There are better ways to >>> waste one's time though. At some point, even semi-believing end-users >>> start to account their own time as too valuable to waste doing things not >>> required by the duped masses. >>> >> True believer? in software? Get real. >> I spend as much time on searches for MS products as I do Linux. >> Yes linux has a way to go. But at the same time MS's want of total control >> is irksome. >> >>> MS does what? I dunno' 'bout that. Indeed, I don't seem to have any big >>> problems operating within and without the boundaries of MS. Well... maybe >>> I do, since I don't think office with directly read Open Office docs, but >>> OO handles basic MS docs so it's not a problem, is it? Claims that >>> Microsoft doesn't embrace "interoperability" are specious. Indeed, I'll >>> opine that MS embraces interoperability to a greater extend that the Open >>> Software Groups that seem to most often raise the issue when it comes to >>> something MS's software does that they don't know how to do. >>> >>> Yep... the "why can't we all get along" type of argument sounds good, >>> doesn't it? But doesn't that argue lose its utility when this thread was >>> started by a linuxy type or a Gnurd that just felt the need to hop on to >>> a MS forum just so he could tell how stupid we are? <G> >>> >>> >>> >> >> OOxml. As one example. > OOXML recommends Windows Metafiles or >>> ? >>> Enhanced Metafiles instead of using ISO/IEC 8632 >>> or W3C SVG. >>> WMF are Windows-only proprietary formats >>> ? >> MS wants this a standard. Standard means used by all for a base line >> conformity. If Windows Metafiles are proprietary how can they be used by >> all? When MS says they will defend/enforce their patents/copywrites. >> This is only one example. > > That would be "true believer" as one that believes in the Open Software/GNU > doctrines. > > Well, when I compare the help available for Open Office with that available > for MS Office, I find the Open Office help to be relatively "non-exsistent." > I also find that just going to the Open Office Site requires me to submit to > doses of anti-ms rhetoric. I never could figure out how that rhetoric was > supposed to solve any real problems. > > If ya'll don't want MS to set any standards then tell them to bugger > off - all MS needs is some evidence that they "tried." Or is it that you > think you have a claim on their intellectual property? Or is it that you > want to limit MS to doing only what the least of their competitors can do? . > > > I agree with you inpart. But when MS gives away for free what their competitors can't because of money,only to do the others in, or want to set as standards its,own,and then say that it is its own and no one else is allowed to use it because it is theirs....... Yes they have a right to their property. Rockefellers, Morgans etc., were stopped because of this behavior. Yes anti monopoly/trust should apply to all business. caver1
Recommended Posts