On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:46:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Rick" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ZKOdnVbf98zetT7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest Blue Screen of Death ever
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>| Why? Because, according to the Morning Herald, both the Beijing
>>>>>Olympics | committee and Lenovo, a major backer of the games, had
>>>>>deliberately chosen to
>>>>>| run XP operating system on the games' PC because they didn't trust
>>>>>Vista.
>>>>>| Turns out they shouldn't have trusted XP either, but they should
>>>>>have known
>>>>>| that. Best of all, Lenovo chairman, Yang Yuanqing, said Lenovo had
>>>>>chosen not
>>>>>| to use Vista because, "If it's not stable, it could have some
>>>>>problems." |
>>>>>| So, next time you go to an online PC sales Web site and you see
>>>>>that line
>>>>>| about "We recommend Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium," just
>>>>>remember: | They're lying.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_biggest_blue_screen_of_death_ever
>>>>>
>>>>> This "recommends" thing should be illegalised. It's false
>>>>> advertising. It's paid for. It's misleading and corrupt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's an interesting point.
>>>
>>> No. It's actually an idiotic point.
>>
>> No, it's an interesting point.
>
> Interesting perhaps if you're an idiot.
Well, you're an idiot...
>
>
>>I'll bet you were one of those people that
>> supported Microsoft's per processor and per system contracts, weren't
>> you?
>
> You mean the same way that IBM and Redhat have "per processor and per
> system contracts" - is this what you mean?
Are IBM and Red Hat, at the moment, illegally maintained monopolies?
If IBM and Red Hat contracts say that vendors have to pay for licenses for
any computer shipped whether that computer has their product installed or
not, that, IMO, is wrong.
>
>
>
>> That "recommends" thing is just another example of Microsoft using it's
>> cash and monopoly power to steer customers away from competing products
>> without having to actually compete, while artificially lowering the
>> price of their products and undercutting the competition.
>
> No. The "recommends" thing is standard advertising. When you see Chuck
> Norris and Christie Brinkley recommending some piece of fitness
> equipment on the infomercials then it's the same thing. When the
> American Dental Association recommends Sonicare toothbrushes it's the
> same thing. When BMW recommends Mobil-1 motor oil it's the same thing.
No, it isn't.
>
> Only a complete moron would somehow think that because a company happens
> to "recommend" something that it must somehow be illegal and should be
> stopped.
When that "recommends" is a thinly veiled vehicle to artificially lower
the price of their products to "participating" vendors, and in the process
hurting competitors and vendors that don't play ball, it is wrong, and
should be illegal if it isn't.
>>>> One wonders if this should be
>>>> taken up with the ASA?
>>>
>>> Go for it. I'm sure they need a good laugh.
>>>
>>> "Recommend - (transitive verb): To endorse"
>>>
>>> Oh yeah... how scary and illegal this is. We can't have people or
>>> companies actually endorse or recommend things can we.
>>>
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>> --
>> Rick
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
--
Rick
|
|
