Brother Ernie comments on Brother Adam's comments on Brother Bill's

Dr. Ernest N. Prabhakar (
Sun, 25 Aug 96 22:29:06 -0700

You wrote:
> Since Ernie wrote (and I quoted out of context)
> > A brilliant analysis! A veritable MST3K of email!
> > (or is that W3STK?)
> Thanks, I wish I could do it all the time. Unfortunately, Bill
> Gates doesn't offer much material in this piece...

Still, you did pretty good, considering. :-)

> Is the implication here that Microsoft for its first 20 years never
> pursued the goal of "making the PC easier to use and cheaper to own"?


> > The Internet
> >
> > Using the built-in 32-bit TCP/IP stack, support for Windows
> > Sockets, and Remote Networking, users no longer have to "patch
> > together" their Internet connections, as they did with Windows 3.1.
> Translation: Now we control the horizontal AND the vertical.

NICE technically and economically correct pop-culture allusion.

> There is no escape. Resistance is futile. You will be integrated.

Oblibatory Trek reference. Par.

> > At the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in April,
> Is WINHECK a nice way of saying WINHELL?

I can't believe that wasn't intentional on their part. Just too easy.

> Um, Bill seems to have forgotten rule number 1 of acronym building:
> spell something people can pronounce. What the winheck is SIPC?

sip-ick. Rhymes with Septic.

> What does "most maintainable and easiest PC to manage" mean???

Manage 'yet'. Not as bad as our earlier models, which were designed
to NOT be easy to use (see above quote for proof ;-)

> Hey, maybe our group meetings qualify us to work for Microsoft...

You mean the high buzzword to clue ratio?

> SIPC? USB? IEEE 1394!?!?! I'm surprised he hasn't said it's ISO 9000
> compliant, too. (Wow bow to the FoRK patron deity-in-residence,
> Dogbert.)

Huh? I thought Rohit was the patron deity. He -is- the local
creator, after all. Of course Dogbert is a superior order of being
(being -entirely- fictional :). Is Rohit then just a demigod? Or is
that demigogue...

> And this is considered a technology IMPROVEMENT? What year is this,
> 1990??

For Microsoft, it is always year 1984. Think about it.

Well, Adam, if you can't write for MST3K, you can always provide
fodder for OTHER people!

Thanks for the straight lines,

-- Ernie P.

Dr. Ernest N. Prabhakar
"And ourselves, your servants for Jesus' sake." -- II Cor 4:5b