Re: Thin Wolfpack for Clubbing CE Clients

Steve Nordquist (
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:30:01 -0500

Robert Harley wrote:


> Yet again, NT can't cut it. But hey, just redefine clustering as
> fail-over and charge a couple of thousand bucks....

It's an open API, write your own 'clustering, et al.'{Meanie. You got a
sunburn again, I bet.}
What is it that makes me nervous about FAT32, anyhow?
Does it really sound like the drive is steeling itself to expulse
the platters on directory access? (Only less so NTFS?)

Synopsis if Bill Gate's letter below, Armitage-style.

It features a photo which shows Gates imitating
that NOW representative from the Reagan administration
and T J Rodgers at the same time.

This sentence intentionally left ambiguous.

This is the boilerplate opener setting the tone for the
cheesing you're about to get.
This claims 25% of US real economic growth and
8% of US output, via the software industry as a whole,
which is said to be vibrant.
This blazenly claims openness, standardness and free
bundling without reference other than to say he is
responsible for job creation in Western Europe.

This is the heading "Founded on Open Standards;"
claiming more MS-related computer services jobs, at
$40B:300,000 people per annum ($13k avg.), than
'combined proprietary technologies' of IBM,
Novell, Oracle and Unix. <SherbertCourse></>
That was meant to be the transition to say that Win98
is competitively priced:
Graph (nextpg.) shows amort. Win98 v. The Economist, Cereal,
Candy bar (?!), WSJ, AOL (hoot!), Cable TV & Starbucks
Tall/Leaded (progressively more expensive, WSJ permitting.)

Begs off 'essential facility' with API-are-free claim!
Denies Win98 OEM minimums!
Claims cost for discrete-item upgrade to Win98 from Win3.0 at $400!
Viz. Netscape started this: Where were you when PCS...
[oops. s.b. PCs] first rolled, with bundles? [Your 'immoral,
method is the plain face of economic Innovation.]

The Netscape meeting was just weird, not bad.
Nevermind what we say in soundbites. 'We have made
incredible investments in the user interface [users expect
to see.]' PC makers can use 85% of the screen for their
own branded content, incl. competitors' software/icons,
Netscape as the default browser 'before the PC leaves
the factory' and their own channel bars. Users...etc.
Force us to 'link' Netscape to the OS? Was that what
feds said? No antitrust/performance precedent

Consumers must know we're open if they choose us.
EOF: EEOC & Philanthropy image (Gates looks normal.)