[News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

  1. [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    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_b..._of_death_ever

    This "recommends" thing should be illegalised. It's false advertising. It's
    paid for. It's misleading and corrupt.


    Related:

    Linux: Hasta la Vista, Microsoft!

    ,----[ Overview ]
    | It's faster than Windows, it fights viruses – and it's free. Jimmy Lee
    | Shreeve on the software that's bringing more power to our PCs
    `----

    http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...00:00:01-00:00
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkiiz4AACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7ROgCfQ2DXluMB5K 4CVh7D1iJALBkx
    y/gAn3eKfxdAo/Mj+mMgha4grg1X4nvY
    =GHs/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. One wonders if this should be taken up with
    the ASA?

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  3. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    > Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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.

    > 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 **

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    > news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >> Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. I'll bet you were one of those people that
    supported Microsoft's per processor and per system contracts, weren't you?

    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.


    >
    >> 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

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:ZKOdnVbf98zetT7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >> news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >>> Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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.


    >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?



    > 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.

    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.




    >
    >>
    >>> 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 **

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:13:04 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. One wonders if this should be taken up with
    > the ASA?


    I'd start with the OpenMoko if I were you.
    The phone that can't make reliable phone calls.

    Sounds like a piker to me...

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:46:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:ZKOdnVbf98zetT7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >>> news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:ZKOdnU3f98w4qD7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >
    > 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.
    >

    I am curious as to whether or not you actually believe your own words. Can
    you offer a simple yes or no to confirm that?


  9. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:31:58 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:ZKOdnU3f98w4qD7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>

    > I am curious as to whether or not you actually believe your own words.
    > Can you offer a simple yes or no to confirm that?


    Yes, I can.


    --
    Rick

  10. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    * Ezekiel peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > "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.


    In other words, disguising advertising deal as a recommendation.

    Watch out for the cow pies:

    --
    And then there was the lawyer that stepped in cow manure and thought
    he was melting...

  11. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:w1Iok.9108$rD2.2018@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >* Ezekiel peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> "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.

    >
    > In other words, disguising advertising deal as a recommendation.


    So when you see an advertisement for a laptop/desktop/whatever it surprises
    you that there's additional advertising on that page?




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:ZKOdnU3f98w4qD7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:46:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" wrote in message
    >> news:ZKOdnVbf98zetT7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >>>> news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >>>>> Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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...


    You're the one who is so fascinated and interested by this. That would make
    you the idiot Ricktard.


    >>
    >>
    >>>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?


    Is Microsoft, at the moment, an illegally maintained monopoly?


    > 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.


    So you have proof that Microsoft is currently doing this?


    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.


    It's exactly the same thing. It's called co-advertising. If it's not the
    same thing then what is the difference?


    >>
    >> 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.


    No. It's a perfectly legitimate example of co-advertising. Whether MS pays
    IBM, Lenovo, Dell etc. a fixed price or imburses them with a discount at
    the end of the day the vendor doing the co-advertising receives something
    from the other company. It's called payment for advertising MS products in
    their ads.

    This is perfectly legal and has been going on for ages. Not that your
    opinion matters one bit and not that a bunch of whining COLA nuts are going
    to have any affect on the advertising industry, but exactly what imaginary
    laws and ethics is this breaking?



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:39:51 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:ZKOdnU3f98w4qD7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:46:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" wrote in message
    >>> news:ZKOdnVbf98zetT7VnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
    >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:10:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:0ahbn5-5r3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >>>>>> Roy Schestowitz 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...

    >
    > You're the one who is so fascinated and interested by this. That would
    > make you the idiot Ricktard.


    Screw you.

    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>>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?

    >
    > Is Microsoft, at the moment, an illegally maintained monopoly?


    Their remedy was extended in the US and they remain under investigation
    Europe.

    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > So you have proof that Microsoft is currently doing this?


    Do I have proof at the present time? No. you are the one that implied Red
    Hat and IBM were doing it.

    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> 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.

    >
    > It's exactly the same thing. It's called co-advertising. If it's not the
    > same thing then what is the difference?


    It is not the same thing.

    >
    >
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > No. It's a perfectly legitimate example of co-advertising. Whether MS
    > pays IBM, Lenovo, Dell etc. a fixed price or imburses them with a
    > discount at the end of the day the vendor doing the co-advertising
    > receives something from the other company. It's called payment for
    > advertising MS products in their ads.
    >
    > This is perfectly legal and has been going on for ages. Not that your
    > opinion matters one bit and not that a bunch of whining COLA nuts are
    > going to have any affect on the advertising industry, but exactly what
    > imaginary laws and ethics is this breaking?


    They are using their financial position, which they have maintained
    illegally, to subsidize the prices of their product.

    >
    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **






    --
    Rick

  14. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > * Ezekiel peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> "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.


    Let's make it clearer, since you're obviously having difficulty with the
    English language:

    rec·om·mend
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.;
    commend; mention favorably: to recommend an applicant for a job;
    to recommend a book.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recommend

    Note: "worthy of confidence, acceptance, use"

    So on the one hand, "Lenovo 'recommends' Vista", but on the other hand
    when it comes to actually using it they have no confidence in it because
    "if it's not stable, it could have some problems."

    IOW when they claim that they "recommend" Vista, Lenovo are *lying*.

    Just like probably /every/ other OEM.

    It's not a "recommendation" at all, it's a contractual obligation to
    *lie* about a product, just as I've always suspected.

    > In other words, disguising advertising deal as a recommendation.


    Personally, I think that keeping those MoUs secret should be illegal. I
    want to see a copy of those contracts, and expose to the world the utter
    corruption that forces OEMs to "recommend" something that they clearly
    don't.

    > Watch out for the cow pies:


    Isn't that what Sweaty has for breakfast? The garbage that comes out of
    his mouth certainly smells like bull****, anyway.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    02:02:17 up 236 days, 22:37, 4 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, 1.08

  15. Re: [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Aug 13, 1:13*pm, Mark Kent wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. *One wonders if this should be taken up with
    > the ASA?
    >


    Definately. Then I'll take all of the celebrities, athletes, and paid
    commercial actors to court for endorsing something they don't use or
    necessarily like. It's an endorsement, not a statement of quality.

  16. Re: [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Aug 13, 5:07*pm, Linonut wrote:
    > * Ezekiel peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > * * * * "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.

    >
    > In other words, disguising advertising deal as a recommendation.
    >
    > Watch out for the cow pies:
    >


    4/5 dentists recommend Crest.

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > "Rick" wrote in message


    >> 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?


    (p)Rick's a mouth-breathing moron.




    > 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.


    It's only illegal when Microsoft is involved, of course.




  18. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. One wonders if this should be taken up
    > with the ASA?


    While you're at it, can you ask them to investigate Canonical, who claims at
    www.ubuntu.com that Linux is "perfect for laptops, desktops and servers."




  19. Re: [News] [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Homer on Thursday 14 August 2008 01:02 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> * Ezekiel peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    >>> "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.

    >
    > Let's make it clearer, since you're obviously having difficulty with the
    > English language:
    >
    > rec·om·mend
    > –verb (used with object)
    > 1. to present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc.;
    > commend; mention favorably: to recommend an applicant for a job;
    > to recommend a book.
    >
    > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recommend
    >
    > Note: "worthy of confidence, acceptance, use"
    >
    > So on the one hand, "Lenovo 'recommends' Vista", but on the other hand
    > when it comes to actually using it they have no confidence in it because
    > "if it's not stable, it could have some problems."
    >
    > IOW when they claim that they "recommend" Vista, Lenovo are *lying*.
    >
    > Just like probably /every/ other OEM.
    >
    > It's not a "recommendation" at all, it's a contractual obligation to
    > *lie* about a product, just as I've always suspected.
    >
    >> In other words, disguising advertising deal as a recommendation.

    >
    > Personally, I think that keeping those MoUs secret should be illegal. I
    > want to see a copy of those contracts, and expose to the world the utter
    > corruption that forces OEMs to "recommend" something that they clearly
    > don't.
    >
    >> Watch out for the cow pies:

    >
    > Isn't that what Sweaty has for breakfast? The garbage that comes out of
    > his mouth certainly smells like bull****, anyway.


    Lenovo is definitely not alone. Acer's boss had spoken to other OEMs and said
    that the entire industry is disappointed with Vista. It would not surprise me
    if the Mafia paid him to put "recommends Vista" in his site, or threatened to
    raise the prices and take him out of business if he doesn't (that's the way it
    typically works).

    A year later he also publicly complained about Microsoft's pressure tactics (I
    think it was a representative). Maybe they retaliated against him after he
    had said the truth.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | One, Two, Free Open Source Software (FOSS)
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkij5VQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo71MQCfQKUnltZ0sx eu1DZxssNG+Tns
    oyAAoJ02W1eczggp0immgQBeLG4fwlQ3
    =BQ6I
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  20. Re: [Rival] "<Vendor> Recommend Vista" is a Big Paid-for Lie

    On Aug 14, 7:21 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    > > Roy Schestowitz 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_b..._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. One wonders if this should be taken up
    > > with the ASA?

    >
    > While you're at it, can you ask them to investigate Canonical, who claims atwww.ubuntu.comthat Linux is "perfect for laptops, desktops and servers."


    Probably should be revised to "Perfect for most laptops, desktops, and
    servers" since there are still some "flatfish configurations" that
    still don't work.

    It seems that there is a new generation of 64 bit 4 core "super-
    laptops" and "super-desktops" that have been designed to make Vista
    run almost as fast as Linux on the ASUS EEE. These machines have quad-
    core 64 bit Intel 2 ghz cores, 8 gigabytes of RAM, and dual SAS or
    SATA drives in RAID configuration. I guess that's what it takes to
    run fast enough to to not look painfully slow when you are running
    Vista with Office and the typical suite of "real world" corporate
    applications.

    Of course, these machines can also run Linux, in fact, with that much
    horsepower, you could run a 64 bit Linux kernel as the hypervisor, run
    Vista or XP as a VM, AND have a fully functional Linux system, all
    running on your laptop or desktop CONCURRENTLY. And you can do it at
    speeds that are still almost twice as fast as "native mode" XP on a
    Core2 Duo.

    Of course, Linux will still run circles around Windows because of the
    more effecient disk and memory management, but XP running under Linux
    VM would also runny pretty darned fast.

    In fact, just putting Vista on the desktop or laptop would be really
    "ho hum, yawn", but putting Linux AND Vista on the same machine might
    actually make it a machine worth paying the $2400 to $5000 price tag.

    This might be one of those cases where the OEMs might have to tell
    Microsoft, "we'll pay for the license but we will control the
    configuration, even if we have to pay the extra $5 to do so".

    Let's face it, Apple is getting $2200 for desktop and laptop machines
    running UNIX and Windows concurrently, or even UNIX and Vista
    concurrently. Meanwhile, sales of Vista-only machines are very
    sluggish even at $500 for a laptop and $300 for a desktop machine.
    The problem is that the cost of a machine that will actually RUN Vista
    and any typical Vista applications is close to $400 per desktop and
    $600 per laptop. The only way the vendor can even break even is to
    sell extended warrantees, accessories, and upgrades, via the Web. The
    retailers have to try and convince customers who decide to plop down
    the $300 or $500 to pay another $300 to $500 to have Geek Squad
    install additional RAM. But the Geek Squad folks STILL can't
    configure a Linux/Vista system, and purchasers of Vista Home premium
    STILL can't call Vista libraries from Linux WINE. At least Microsoft
    will permit the end users to configure Vista as the client to a Linux
    hypervisor.

    Vendors may "Reccomend Vista" but what they REALLY want to market is a
    machine that runs BOTH Linux AND Vista so that Apple won't keep taking
    their market share and profits. At this point, Apple is poised to
    overtake Dell or HP and move into the #2 position among the OEMs by
    dollar volume, and is already in the #3 position in terms of units
    sold per quarter.

    We've seen in in review after review. Vista is really pretty, has
    some impressive graphics, but non-Microsoft applications don't work
    very well. All things considered, I'd rather have a Mac ( with OS/X).

    Microsoft still has the "bragging rights" because most Macs are sold
    with OS/X AND Windows in a virtualized desktop that allows Mac users
    to run OS/X and Vista at the same time.

    The problem for Microsoft is that they have betrayed the OEMs who have
    stayed loyal all those years, by keeping the OEMs in a hog-tie thanks
    to Microsoft restrictions on configurations (can't install both
    Windows and Linux concurrently). As a result, outside the US, HP,
    Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and other relative newcomers like Asus and C4 are
    now offering Linux on their PCs, and offering them for about 1/2 the
    price of a properly configured Vista system. After all, it's really
    not good for customer relations to sell a computer that you know is
    not going to work properly, just so that you can offer it at a price-
    point, above which customers won't buy.

    Remember, most of these "cheap PCs" have 1-2 gigabytes of RAM, dual 2
    ghz CPUs, and 5400 RPM hard drives, which will barely run Vista, let
    alone Office 2000. That same configuration is plenty to run Linux,
    Open Office or Symphony, browser, skype, e-mail, chat, streaming
    video, and 20-30 other popular applications, all at the same time.

    What Linux users most often want is higher resolution screens, and
    7200 RPM hard drive. The power users also want 4 gig of RAM so that
    they can run Linux as the primary OS and XP (NOT VIsta) as a
    Virtualized client. This also seems to be a configuration that is
    desirable to corporate customers, most of whom have significant
    investments in XP technology, but are looking to Linux/Unix as their
    future desktop platform after years of very positive experience with
    Linux and UNIX servers as well as server virtualization.

    They've also had about 10 years worth of experience with Windows
    servers, and while Windows severs have had their place, it has become
    quite obvious that Windows servers are substantially more expensive to
    manage, maintain, update, backup, recover, and support than Linux or
    UNIX servers, often 8 times more expensive over a 10 year period.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast