| Sunday,
June 11, 2000 re:
"I'm not sure what brand it is, but it runs the Windows Operating
System."
Regardless of whether this quote is accurate, and
in-context, it certainly does not "speak volumes" on his
competency to hear and rule on the trial.
This was a Trial of Law. The arguments and remedies
presented were based on legal precedent and legal argument. I can't
imagine that the judge presiding in the Standard Oil case was expected to
be know how to drill for oil, or that the judge in the AT&;T case
should have known how a telephone switch works.
If there are any questions of competence in this
case, I would tend to look towards the Microsoft Legal team, who seemed
utterly incapable of discrediting the government's case. (I don't imagine
faked videotape testemony helped them much either.)
Kjell Wooding
Well, I was one of the first to say that
Microsoft's legal presentations left much to be desired. Actually I used
stronger language. I could have done a better job teamed with my family
lawyer than the Microsoft team did.
But this was NOT a "trial of law" and
that's the problem. The findings of fact are what this is based on, and
they were flawed beyond belief. It is fact that IBM was a larger company
than Microsoft, and funked it with OS/2 when they could have had the
dominant position in post-DOS operating systems had they cared to make the
effort. They didn't. It is fact that Word Perfect and Word Star had
a dominant position they threw away. It is fact that some kind of
mechanism for dealing with HTML files must be part of any graphical
operating system. It is fact that Netscape had a two year head start, gave
away their product through "beta" downloads, said they intended
to make Netscape a full operating system and that any operating system not
based on a web browser was doomed; and then blew their lead.
It is fact that Apple and Sun are competitors to
Microsoft in the OS business and always have been. It is fact that
Linux and various UNIX operating systems now pose a large threat to
Microsoft dominance, and a good thing, too. It is fact that had Microsoft
acted as his competitors have convinced Penfield Jackson that the company
was legally required to do, Microsoft would be in big competitive trouble,
the Great Ones of his competition would have had more time to play and go
yachting and do all those things they would rather do, and we would all be
paying a lot more for our stuff.
Today's COMPUSA ads have Windows at quite
reasonable prices; this includes networking; and the total cost is less
than we used to pay for DOS and Lantastic or whatever you wanted to use.
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a
Mac and PC has no damned business deciding what the nature of the
competitive environment is, and it is a foolish thing to say otherwise.
Thank you for your lecture. You now have mine. Stay well.
Dr.P.,
It *is* frustrating to see someone without
sufficient knowledge making a major decision. (I'm frustrated all the time
by this, in many other areas.)
But as you pointed out, Microsoft did a terrible job
of educating the judge and arguing its case. As someone else said
elsewhere, "They may have been in the right but they LOST." They
screwed up, they lose. Seems as Darwinian as life itself, doesn't it?
What really has me wondering is, WHY did they screw
this up? It makes no sense to me. I figured all along, they have something
up their sleeve. But what? And when will we find out?
Pierre Mihok
Dear Jerry,
Mr. Thompson mentions "using WinGate to provide
firewall/proxy/NAT functions" in your CurrentMail 06-10-00 page.
WinGate does NOT provide a firewall. Their idea of a firewall is that the
LAN connected systems cannot be reached directly from the outside. The
system running WinGate is not protected. Besides, an unprotected machine
on a network can be used to access the rest of the LAN. Black ICE (
http://www.NetworkICE.com ) coexists with WinGate and is a quick, easy,
effective and inexpensive firewall solution.
Disclaimer: I have sold and installed many WinGate
systems in the past. Due to problems with the way Deerfield.com operates,
I have moved on to other products. WinGate and Mailer Daemon are very good
products -- it is unfortunate that the developers have chosen to farm out
the sales and support functions.
John Ruff JRuff@Excite.com
Thanks!
> Mr. Thompson mentions "using WinGate to provide
firewall/proxy/NAT functions" in your CurrentMail 06-10-00 page.
WinGate does NOT provide a firewall.
WinGate 4.0 does in fact provide firewall and NAT
functions, or so Moshe Bar tells me, and I suspect he's correct. I haven't
tried WinGate 4.0 yet and probably will not do so because I've decided,
for now at least, to use Windows 2000 Professional with Internet
Connection Sharing and BlackIce.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson thompson@ttgnet.com http://www.ttgnet.com
Well, Moshe Bar is generally right in what he
says...
Subject: Missing Window's help
Maybe you or one of your readers has an idea what to
do, they can reply to me at the email below to avoid chewing up column
space. I have a Sony VAIO laptop with Windows 98. Nice machine, great
display but Sony ships you a recovery disk rather than a Windows 98
installation disk. If you get to the point where you have to use it, it
formats your hard disk and installs the 'day 1' version of Windows and you
have a long day ahead of you installing all your other problems, getting
my cable modem configured and working again so I can download megabits of
Windows updates. There are also some of the things I would like to try
such as like the Windows resource kit but this isn't an option as Sony
'disabled' those (per my discussions with Sony's online technical
support). Grrr. There is an install file down in the CABS files on my hard
disk but that goes through a complete install without telling you what it
is about to do and give you a chance to back-out of it once you start.
Obviously, I've tried it because I now know what it does <g>.
My problem is that Window's help no longer works
(start, help). I don't use it that much so I'm not sure when it happened
or what programs I may have installed/uninstalled between when I do
remember it working and now. For a period of time when I realized the
problem, you would click on 'help' only to get a message saying 'missing
file hh.exe or some other required file. Ensure all files are present'
(this isn't verbatim but was to this effect). I realize that even if I had
a 'full meal deal' copy of Windows 98, I might not have an easy way of
fixing this.
I'm not noticed any other problems but it has me
worried if 'help' isn't working, have I got a bigger problem brewing out
there? So, my questions are: a) does anyone know what files I need to
extract from my CABS to see if it will re-install help and b) should I
bite the bullet and use the recovery disk to avoid other potential
problems?
Thanks for anyone's help or suggestions
Bruce Veale jbveale@hotmail.com
Today's COMPUSA ad has a copy of Widows 98
(upgrade) 2d edition for about $70. What I'd do is buy one of those. Or if
you are part of a club, have the club buy one, as a precaution. Most of
the Resource Kit files will istall without a problem, and you can always
copy in missing files from it by expanding the CABS. Personally I think
this move to furnish an OS without furnishing the OS does harm consumers,
and ought to have been one of the measures charged in the DOJ suit against
Microsoft. But it wasn't, because everyone in that case, judge, Microsoft
defense, DOJ prosecutors, were incompetent and didn't understand what was
going on. Silliest waste of time and talent I've ever seen.
As I have said before, Microsoft ought
voluntarily to document and publish all calls to their OS as soon as any
Microsoft application attempts to use that call. This would solve most of
the problems, it would be easy to implement, and it would do little harm
to Microsoft. But what the hell, they won't do it, and this will drag on
and on and on.
From: Chris Morton To: Jerry Pournelle Subject: Windows 2000 vs. WinNT4
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
You will indeed find managing Win2k much easier than
keeping NT4 going.
Win2k incorporates Device Manager which makes device
addition and troubleshooting _far_ easier than with NT4.
Your biggest headaches will be the occasional
unavailability of device drivers for hardware which is either too old or
out of the mainstream. The latter category includes OEM versions of
certain hardware, video cards in particular.
My major complaint is with Win2k server, which as
far as I can tell, still doesn't permit one to "map root" a
directory lower down in the tree than the first tier beneath root. In
Novell, one can easily map "\\servername\directory\subdirectory"
to drive letter and path "d:\". This isn't permitted in NT4, and
as far as I can tell, that hasn't changed in Win2k.
Another major improvement in Win2k is the ability to
control viewing of directories. In NT4, there's no easy way to hide
directories based on user permissions. How large companies get by without
being able to conceal a directory named, say "layoffs" is a
mystery to me.
Chris Morton Rocky River, OH
Good points. Thanks. Roland keeps telling me I'll
like W 2000 and I certainly do; I will check with Compaq tomorrow before
making the change, but I'm looking forward to getting 2000 Professional on
Regina. That's what Princess has and I like it.
Dear Mr. Pournelle
As a Byte reader from the almost the beginning, I
just discovered that your column lives on at www.byte.com, and just
finished reading the current version.
As an OnStream drive user (I have one of the early
50GB SCSI internal drives) I was disappointed to find that there is not
yet a driver for the native Windows 2000 backup application, although one
has been promised for sometime. This mean you must use either Veritas
Backup Exec 8.0 or Computer Associates ArcserveIT 6.61, both of which
require a hefty investment. Fortunately, the trial version of ArcserveIT
included with my drive, while filling my event log with warnings that my
license has expired, has continued to operate night after night, backing
up some 30 GB of files from my small (server + 3 workstations) home office
network.
I look forward to following your continuing
adventures, since my own have experiences in computerland have closely
paralleled your own.
Regards
Jim McNulty
Indeed. Thanks. I'm waiting for a really good
backup program myself. But there is a fair one in Windows 2000.
I have been reading your column since the days of
BYTE magazine in the printed version and I have to say that you are my
favorite columnist. What I like most is that you are not afraid to write
about your mistakes and/or problems and this has been a great consolation
to us all computer freaks that have problems and sometimes feel so stupid
that they cannot solve a seemingly simple (major understament) problem. I
would like to propose a new method of measuring computer experience.
Logged hours (not online necessarily) much like pilots have flying hours .
My own record would be in the 25.000 hrs range (10 years working on the
field times 2000 working hrs per year plus college and home usage). Of
course this is just an indication it doesn't measure quality or depth of
experience or exposure to new technologies (I am sure that in US there are
many 20 year olds that know twice as much as I do and have built systems
and networks that I can only dream about) but you have to consider the
size of the economy and the public awareness for technology.
Best regards - George Yiannibas MCSE hintgy@hol.gr
Thanks for the kind words. As to rating computer
flight time, what does one make of data entry specialists?
Jerry:
In a recent letter on your mail page, Mark A.
Gallmeier wrote in part:
>2. The quickest way to make military service
attractive is to make sure >it guarantees a job on the far side.
The following is a quote from the "Washington
Whispers" column in the June 5, 2000 issue of U.S. News and World
Report.
>Official sponsor > >In the latest bid to
boost recruiting, a form of corporate sponsorship >is coming to the
Army. Starting July 1, recruits who sign up for >technical specialties
will be entitled to private jobs once they leave >the service. One
firm, Army contractor General Dynamics, may go as far >as hiring kids
as they enlist and then granting them four years of leave >while they
serve in the Army. The benefits: The Army doesn't have to >compete for
troops in a tight labor market, and companies get trained >help.
Michael Crapser mcrapser@juno.com
Interesting. But I gather that morale is at rock
bottom, in part because of the integration of women; at least in the
combat branches. Perhaps things will soon all be well as the kinks get
shook out?
Hi Jerry,
First off, I love your work. Your books have caused
me to lose sleep reading "one more page" more times than I can
count. Thank you.
Now on to this latest Microsoft fiasco regarding the
OEM CD's. I work in an IT department of a medium sized company, and to say
that we were unhappy with the latest move to make our lives more difficult
would be a major understatement. We received 18 new desktop systems, and
were shocked to find that the software consisted of a rescue CD and a
serial number glued to the case of the machine.
I shouldn't have to point out to you that as an IT
pro, I wander around reinstalling Microsoft OS's all day long, usually
using one set of CD's. We have licenses for all the systems in the
building, but we tend to do it the easy way, with once CD and one Serial
number. So what this would cause us to do is implement a complex tracking
system, matching each CD to each machine.
It took me about ten minutes to figure out the work
around. Booting from the rescue CD, it gives you the option to drop the
install information onto the hard drive, be it the Win98 cabs, or the i386
directory. Ten minutes later with a CD-R and the install info was back
onto a disc that I can carry around from system to system.
So basically this new method of "Copy
protection" only seems to exist to annoy the end user. Once you have
the cabs or i386 directory (which I have compared to the retail versions,
and it seems to be the same thing) you can once more, do as you will with
it.
Thanks again.
(Could I be a name and addressee withheld by request
to deter the jack-booted thugs? Thanks!)
Precisely. Thanks and stay well. This discussion continued.
The only reliable full-restore tape backup solution
with which I'm familiar is BackupExec from www.veritas.com used in
combination with the Intelligent Disaster recovery option, which can be
found here:
http://www.veritas.com/us/products/backupexec/beoptionsnt2000.shtml#disaster
Here's their commercial CD-RW imaging solution for
SOHO users:
http://store2.veritas.com/VERITAS/sframe.asp?fname=product.asp&;product_no=dr
And here's a freeware imaging solution for Linux
systems and Linux/Win9x dual-boot systems:
http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/index.html
The reason that not much attention has been paid to
image-type backup recovery is a) that image backups are a Bad Thing, since
they can only be restored to a machine -identical- to that of the original
without having major compatibility problems, and b) that writable
removable media large enough to back up the typical home system has only
recently been affordable for consumers.
Due to the nature and architecture of Microsoft OSes,
an inherent 'full restore' capability is difficult to implement (though
not impossible; see above). It's very easy under *NIX - I can take a
floppy and a tape, or a CD and a tape, and restore just about any kind of
*NIX system out there.
The reason it's so easy is that everything under
*NIX, including device drivers, looks like a file. And so using cpio, or
something like LoneTar or BRU, one can back up all the device files as
well as data, libs, and binaries. One can restore them the same way.
--- Roland Dobbins
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan St.André [mailto:saint@oregano.savantage.com]
Subject: Windows backup/recovery for
John Doe
Sir, Can you direct me to an effective
[meaning, "it is written down, it works, we know it works because it
was used to recover"] backup and recovery procedure for Windows-98
and Windows-NT? Can you explain why this topic gets so little attention?
With 20+ Gb drives in a single partition the typical case, shouldn't
someone know how to backup and recover instead of format and re-install?
Everything that I have ever seen on this
topic is end-user instructions for someones tools and hardware. I have
about six different ways to copy all of my hard disks to alternate media.
I have yet to recover from boot disk troubles using any of them to
"restore".
Gratefully, ~~~ Dan Saint-André Austin,
Texas
RE: MemTurbo like programs
Jerry, I recall your liking this program. If so, you
might want to check out this debunking of programs of this type by your
fellow CMP columnist. It's interesting:
http://www.winmag.com/columns/explorer/2000/12.htm
(column by Fred Langa)
Rick Seiler
I read it, I agree with most of it, and I won't
run Windows 98 programs without MemTurbo. I find it works for me, and
works well. I agree it can't get at the kernel itself, but it does do some
garbage collection that turns out to be valuable in my experience.
TOP
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
