• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stevecronin

  1. Phasma ftw!
  2. Thank you! Austin is so mother fucking kick ass. It's like a different culture on every block!
  3. I just might!
  4. Hey, You people in the Houston area - ya'll just want to organize a meet?
  5. I live in Houston
  6. Ahhh man I'd love to come. Stupid stupid credit card bills!
  7. Fellow binrev member zeroxeal and I went dumpster diving at a phonebook company once. We found this old drunk dude in the dumpster that scared the shit out of us though.
  8. This device is not legal in the US under FCC rules, it operates in the 450/230 Mhz bands, the later being for aircraft comms. :wtc:
  9. "Secure and trustworthy" Not to mention the fact that new exploits will follow.
  10. IMHO, it is pretty hard to deny that Microsoft has a monopoly on Operating Systems and is in violation of US anti-trust laws. It is also in the consumer's best interest to see Microsoft broken up because it would result in better products and cheaper prices. One of the best things the Government did, in regard to monopolies, was breaking up AT&T. We were using the same old phone technology for 10 years until different phone companies started competing with eachother and we finally received new technology. It is not right that we, as consumers, have to rely solely on Mircrosoft to improve and set the prices of the operating system. (Even with the small open-source movement.)
  11. Anthex- I would first like to say that I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you and everyone here. I do not with to be labled a "whiny linux lover/ windows hater" or anything else of that matter. I wish to represent my image as someone who is only trying to have a professional discussion on an issue. Thank you. Nice, I love it how you provided some facts from articles to back up your opinion. I am a bit confused, however, by this statement. "The only place where Microsoft has a 97% market share is in desktop systems." That means desktop systems preinstalled with the Microsoft OS correct? Also, I realize that Microsoft has other producs and while I am mainly talking about the OS overall, my argument revolves around the future growth of technology that microsoft produces. If it were up to me, and I don't know the details of the situation, I would split Microsoft up into different companies that were blind to eachother as far as source code went. Their competition would increase the rate of growth and technology, rather than one company doing things at it's convenience so they make more money. (Like the phone company using old technology for 10 years.) "What gives the government the right to take your company that you have worked very hard with, to make money, to be successful... what gives them the right to take it.. and say "You cant sell your product anymore because people are idiots and mostly buy your product"" We obviously have differing opinions. I believe that Microsoft has a monopoly, by definition, on it's operating system. You don't. I also believe that, becuase of the anti-trust laws, government should take action against microsoft and split them up. (As far as OS production goes.) A result of this would be better products at cheaper prices. (Therefore better for the consumer.) The reason is not because "You cant sell your product anymore because people are idiots and mostly buy your product."
  12. +1 go with the pci card
  13. that's really too bad. I don't know why people act like that.
  14. I have one thing, and I will say this as nicely as possible. Bullshit What about Mac OS? Do you want commercial OS's? Here is a list! *Black Ratchet edits this incedibly long list of OSes* No, not bullshit. You can't argue with definition... Microsoft controls 95% of the market control. A monopoly, by definition, is 90% of the market control or higher. Because of antitrust laws they should be broken up. This is a good thing for the consumers as we will have a faster advance of technology in OSs with competition as well as cheaper software. Besides, the small open-source movement doesn't cut it anyway, I believe in the market of actual software. (As long as there is competition, not a monopoly.)
  15. the es stuff is expensive
  16. I believe Microsoft is more important because it is dealing with technology, not meat packing. Microsoft controls 95% of the market ccontrol. A monopoly, by definition, is 90% of the market control or higher.
  17. I don't think you understand. I'm not pissed about anything, nor do I have anything to "get over." I'm presenting a certain side on an issue and I'm interested in the opinions of others. I'm sure Microsoft pays off Government officials for certain legislation procedures dealing the anti-trust laws. Corruption in Government happens all the time. I'm not whining.
  18. remember tho there will be a demand for compatibility between PCs, not PC and xbox. Besides, consumer demand will call for it and the companies will be forced to make multiplatform games. Although having different OSs for different purposes wouldnt be bad ethier. I wouldnt mind having an OS company just for games, but i think multiplatform games would be killer. it's always better when consumers have a choice
  19. A lot of times developers only want to develop for one platform. It is a waste of resources to reimplement a game for many smaller systems. In this case a monopoly on operating systems actually brings the price of games down and increases their quality. you bring up a good point, as far as games go, i know its annoying when games are written for both say pc and xbox and us pc guys suffer.
  20. Atleast with like Notepad, and sometimes rich text docs, you can usually copy/paste or read with no problem. But werd e-mails/ html host is what I do anyway. Screw Office.
  21. Can't you save versions of ppt as an older one so newer and older versions are backwards compatible?
  22. You bring up a very good point, there would be compatibility issues. However, because of demand, the companies would be forced to allow compatibility of certain office programs betwee OSs.
  23. The problem is not that MS has a OS monopoly. The problem is that they are using that monopoly as leverage to get monopoplies in other markets. If they were to be split up it would probably be a split of os and application components. One company for OS, one for IE and IIS, one for the Office Suite, etc. I don't really care if they are split or not, RMS and the FSF saved us all with the work they did in the 80's and 90's. We're to the point that anything we need can be built by those willing to do the work. Patents and dmca type laws are more of a threat to future innovation that Microsoft, imho. edit: speling erorrs... I agree with what you say about Microsoft using their OS monopoly as leverage to obtain monopolies in other application markets. I think Microsoft does a good job with the rate of technology they produce. However, the fact remains that the rate of technology would still increase if there was competition. Plus I still think the OS monopoly is a problem because that defines the type of apps that can run on that OS and overall technology increase on that specific product. (Relying on Microsoft alone for improvement.)
  24. I agree, thanks for your input.