Geeee, John.... I get the feeling ya don't think very highly of Mr. KALETSLY.
(now where did I get THAT idea, huh?) <wee smirk>

Barb Mallut
[log in to unmask]

----------
From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange on behalf of John Morey
Sent:   Tuesday, October 07, 1997 5:15 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
Subject:        VERY long Re: NEWS: Computing: Snakeoil, software and Gates

At 06:35 AM 9/10/97 -0400, Janet Paterson posted an article written by
ANATOLE KALETSKY called "Snakeoil, software and Gates".  In this article he
made a number of statements to which I would like to respond with my own
comments.  Before I do, I will say that I do as much "Bill bashing" as most
people.

He is an easy target.  He founded a business, Microsoft, that has made him
the richest person in the world. If people did not like his products,
people would not buy them.  Anyone try to use a non-Windows product for
their major computer needs?  I have; it sucks.  Anyone try to use one of
the non-Windows word processing programs? I have; they suck! Anyone still
using an 8088 system, or trying to run any complex program on a Tandy 1000
or an IBM PCJr.?  Without Intel or Microsoft, what would the personal
computer user do?  Write their own programs?  That really sucks!  Think
about it.

>...the mayhem caused by his flagship computer software, Windows 95...
The development of Windows 95 has been called one of the most complex
technological endeavors in the history of mankind.  Microsoft pulled it
off. Sure there are glitches, Anyone own a perfect car?  Cars have been
around a lot longer than computers.

>Among the dozens of letters, there was not one from a satisfied user of
>Windows or other Microsoft products.
Probably because of the asinine diatribe of Mr. KALETSKY was not worth the
time it would take to read it, and anyone who read it, trashed it as the
crap it was.

>anyone who tries to use a Windows personal computer: Why are computers so
>unreliable and difficult to use?
Anyone try to use an Osborne PC, an attempt by British Industry to make a
computer?  You may be able to find on in a museum or a scrap heap; but you
won't find one in use by a serious computer user who wants a PC that works
and can do something.

>The short answer seemed to be that the computer industry is dominated by
>two companies: Gates' Microsoft and Intel, which manufactures the
microprocessors at >the heart of every PC.
The software and hardware are sure not dominated by a British company.
Maybe the dominance is due to the fact that Intel and Microsoft make the
very best products.

>By constantly changing specifications and adding technical gimmicks which
use up ever >more of the PC's memory and processing power, these companies
keep up the pressure on >their customers to invest in new hardware and
software.
The demand for technical improvements is driven by the customer and the
marketplace, not
the manufacturer.  Anyone try to do a spread sheet without a lot of memory
or on a 8088 machine?

>The constant churning of computer features and technology is in the
interests of the >dominant manufacturers for one all-important reason.  It
prevents technical standards >from stabilising, which would lead to
dramatic reductions in prices.
Has Mr. KALETSKY been in a time warp?  In just the last 9 months, a PC
buyer can get a machine with 4x the RAM, 4x the hard drive memory, and 4x
the speed for less than the first PC cost.  As for standards; one time the
standard for computers was 16 k of memory and speed was measured in hertz,
not megahertz.  I'm sure Mr. KALETSKY thinks things should have stopped
there!!  Or maybe Mr. KALETSKY thinks we should have stopped at the vacuum
tube.  The reliability of the first computers was measured in hours before
the computer broke down!!  Or maybe progress should have stopped at the
abacus!

>Unfortunately technological churning also prevents improvements in
reliability and >quality.
See previous comments. Or maybe Mr. KALETSKY should look up the term Luddite!

>Technological churning also prevents the establishment of common standards
>which would make equipment compatible and allow computers to work
>seamlessly together, in the way that is taken for granted when we plug in a
>new television set, CD player or telephone.
Mr. KALETSKY has got to be kidding!  Setting standards will generally
stifle technological development.  Let's set the speed of an airplane at
100 mph. Using his criteria we would have no TV, no CD players, no telephone!

>In sum, Microsoft and Intel have completely skewed the rules of engagement
in the >computer industry: instead of competing on price, reliability and
quality, they have
>overwhelmed potential competitors with constantly changing gimmicks and
>claims about illusory definitions of "speed" and "power."
It is clearly obvious that Mr. KALETSKY does not understand why Microsoft
and Intel are successful. It is exactly because they meet their customers
needs of price, reliability and quality.  If they have skewed any of the
rules of engagement, it is by being successful.

>The main reason, I think, is that most people who pay for computers -- be
>they company directors, parents or head teachers -- know nothing about
>information technology but think it is frightfully important.
I hate to be patronized.  This is from the "Big Brother knows best" school
of thought.

>The people who buy computers today are driven by the same combination of
>ignorance, embarrassment, hope and foreboding that turned so many Americans
>into hypochondriacs.
This is crap from someone who still thinks the sun never sets on the
British Empire.  The real ignorance is Mr. KALETSKY's.  His ignorance has
turned him into an incompetent
jerk.

>Under these cirumstances, market forces can fail to perform their normal
>function of bringing down prices and stabilising standards, as they failed
>in American healthcare for many years.
Mr. KALETSKY seems to be very bitter about the success of American companies.

>Bill Gates is merely the latest and most successful in the long history of
>American snakeoil salesmen.
If I think really hard, I may come up with a British company that Mr.
KALETSKY feels is successful.  Let's see.  There was the company that built
the Titanic, or the Comet Airplane, or the very reliable British automobile.

In closing, I hope Mr. KALETSKY's Osbourne Computer continues to perform as
well as his keen understanding of what makes successful businesses.  If so,
we won't have to read anymore of his drivel.