-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Monday 18 August 2008 19:25 : \____
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
> on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:18:13 -0400
>> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> And in 2000, when Windows ME was falling on it's face, a LOT of people
>>> were looking very seriously at Linux. Many corporations were happy
>>> with Windows 2000 and were looking at ways to add Linux to the mix.
>>> They had service contracts that included free upgrades to Windows, so
>>> they though they had plenty of money to explore Linux as an
>>> alternative for both servers and desktops.
>>> Microsoft retaliated by tripling the price for support contracts,
>>> giving corporate customers 30 days to accept the upgraded contracts,
>>> or Microsoft would terminate all support and they would have to buy
>>> new licenses if they wanted XP.
>> I'm sure that you have a URL or a "anonymous email from a reliable source"
>> to backup your bullshit. Right? I searched the web and couldn't find diddly
>> on MS tripling the cost of support contracts.
> There will be nothing on MS tripling the cost of support
> contracts because MS never *did* triple the cost of support
> contracts (such would require tripling the cost of the
> product, as contracts are usually 1% of the cost of the
> product per month), AFAIK; certainly Google can't
> find evidence therefor.
I don't know about the days of XP (I hardly used that O/S), but Microsoft *did*
cause a big stir with this recent wild elevation of costs:
Microsoft raises support fees for Windows, Office
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft quietly raised last week its per-incident support prices
| across the board for Windows and Office.
| Support for Windows XP and Windows Vista now costs $59 per incident.
| Prior to the Vista launch, the per-incident support price for
| Windows was $39.
That's more than 50% a rise in cost!!
> (If anyone has proof to the contrary, please
> post it. I'm curious. Closest Google could get was
> which mentions that Microsoft increased storage on
> the entry level XBox 360 from 20GB to 60GB, with no
No, no. You're doing it wrong... Google sorts by relevance where newer stories
take precedence. It's almost impossible to find old stories even if they are
indexed. Google has no notion of a story's age. Google News doesn't go back
> increase in price -- that's a tripling, but in the
> other direction. Also, Microsoft's warranty costs
> apparently tripled for the XBox 360 as a lot more of them
> came down with symptoms than originally expected,
> including the dreaded "red ring of death":
You're missing the past by looking at search engines like that. I've seen old
news stories disappearing too. Recent example:
Someone sent me a pointer, saying that the trolls refuted what I wrote.
,----[ Quote ]
| For instance, Microsoft, the world’s most valuable company, declared a profit
| of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the
| change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss
| of $18 billion, according to Smithers.
Why might this just vanish from The Economist? It was a big article at the
I also failed to find some article about the back doors in Windows and
Microsoft's passing of source code to governments for inspection (because of
these back doors).
> An interesting repair attempt (and a discussion
> of the heat-related design deficiencies of the
> initial XBox 360 release, centering around apparently
> deficient springs in the cross/X shaped clamps) is at
> Unauthorized modifications to the console will of course
> void one's warranty and may lead to consequences such as
> being banned from XBox Live -- even if the only thing one
> did is install a fan attached to the internal heat sink, to
> increase airflow. If in doubt, best to check to see if an
> authorized repair center can do authorized warranty work. )
XBox is dead. It's fried. It has lost Microsoft so much money and it's the
least sold console in the US (for several consecutive months, losing to the
> And even if Microsoft did, what of it? XP is an inherently
> more complex product than Win2k.
> Also, I doubt a lot of people were looking at Linux.
> At most, maybe 0.1% in the business community back in 2000
> era -- if that.
Microsoft has been shown going out of its way to create the illusion that Linux
is nowhere. At the same time it calls it #1 threat and occasionally you find
massive deployments that go under the radar. Why might that be? Might
Microsoft realise that this discourages hardware support (drivers) and porting
of applications? Is Microsoft trying to squash both the chicken and the egg?
>> I suspect that you are once again lying. The same way you lied when you
>> claimed that you invented the web-browser,
I suspect that you are a Microsoft Munchkin, Scott Douglas. What brings you to
a Linux advocacy forum? Oh wait, I know...
'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry.'
(reference "Comes vs Microsoft" lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism
document, PDF pages 45 & 55 on
> Such would require that Rex was born about 1973 and went
> to the University of Illinois. This should not be that
> hard to verify.
REX DIDN'T CLAIM THAT. It was the darn Microsoft Munchkins, i.e. it's libel.
> Marc Andressen and Eric Bina are apparently the inventors
> of Mosaic, which started the entire process.
> There is no mention of Ballard in
> does mention SSL was originally developed by Netscape. This
> might push back Rex's birthdate to about 1969, maybe.
Again, you respond to lies. You assist the audacity of it all.
>> and when you claimed that you
>> invented SSL and http and when you claimed that you invented Java and when
>> you claimed that Martin Marietta broke into your high school locker in order
>> to steal plans for a new weapon from you.
> A Google search on "Martin Ballard" coughed up -- surprisingly -- Martin
> Ballard, an English/BBC radio presenter.
> A Google search on "Marietta Ballard" coughed up Marietta Real Estate
> (apparently this is in Cobb County, Georgia), and a gastroenterologist
> based therein.
> A Google search on "Martin Marietta Ballard" coughed up
> a suit (case # 94-329, dated 1994-09-09, Ballard Rural
> Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (complaintant) v. Long Distance
> Management and South Central Bell Telephone Company
> (defendant), in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
> On the second page,
> <snip >
> is apparently a COLA-specific blog archive on -- Rex
> Ballard. Make of it what one will; I don't see anything
> horribly obvious yet.
More unneeded libel cited. Why?
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "All your archives are (sic) belong to Google"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
21:05:01 up 28 days, 7:11, 3 users, load average: 0.52, 0.49, 0.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----