| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Billy G & 640k | |
|
||
| Time: 12:26 EST/17:26 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Thanks GhostRider: Denying he ever said "640K should be enough for anyone," Bill Gates wrote me recently as follows. This is one of those "quotes" that won't seem to go away. I've explained that it's wrong when it's come up every few years, including in a newspaper column and in interviews.There is a lot of irony to this one. Lou Eggebrecht (who really designed the IBM PC original hardware) and I wanted to convince IBM to have a 32-bit address space, but the 68000 [a Motorola-designed processing chip, eventually used in the Apple Macintosh] just wasn't ready. Lew had an early prototype but it would have delayed things at least a year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:12:00 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 40 (216.68.248.2) at 2/25/2002 1:05:01 PM |
|
The quote is one that i see all the time, and is abot as funny as the GW said in office, then DQ then AG. I actual know several IBMers that claim they hear the statement first person, but put my trust in Bill.
ps : The above post is typical crap, complete off topic. |
| #2 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 2/25/2002 1:15:38 PM |
| Crazy, I have heard this alot and always assumed it to be true. Well I guess it just goes to show you that you shouldn't ass u me anything. |
| #3 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 2/25/2002 1:32:45 PM |
|
RedAvenger, I felt the same way, that's why I wanted others to see this article. This post was edited by GhostRider on Monday, February 25, 2002 at 13:34. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/25/2002 1:52:16 PM |
|
There are quite a few things that are myths, that people just assume to be true without doing any research. If you repeat something over and over again people will eventually think it's true. People really need to question such stories, and try to find the root source to corroborate it.
One of my favorites is the "Al Gore claims to have created the Internet" lie spread by the GOP. The media was at fault for that one as they never publicized any interviews with Vint Cerf where he acknowledges Gore's contribution. They tried to pull the same thing with "Al Gore claims to have discovered the Love Canal", but the children who heard Gore speak came out with their own press release to counter it, making the GOP look really silly. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/25/2002 3:29:44 PM |
|
#8 - Because that's what Gore said before it was twisted by his enemies. The exact words were "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Here is Vint Cerf's take on it: http://www1.worldcom.com/global/resources/cerfs_up/internet_history/q_and_a.xml#question_11 "I think the Vice President is very deserving of credit for his active support for the Internet and the businesses that depend upon it daily." Here's a good article on the controversy: http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore.and.the.Inte1.html Oh now this is interesting... I found that Gore article by using google.com. When I clicked on the link, the words I had searched for 'Al Gore internet" were highlighted in red. I'm not sure how google did that, but wow is that cool. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/25/2002 6:07:43 PM |
|
#13 - The misperception you wish to create is responded to in the second link I provided. You are confusing arpanet with the internet. The 1986 supercomputing act, which provided funding to colleges to install networked computing systems is what evolved the internet. It was the funding that bill that helped to fund NCSA and such. I went to Iowa State and the money we received from the government helped to fund Project Vincent, which was an implementation of the Project Athena work from MIT. But more importantly it brought in around 600 high powered RISC workstations that we would not have otherwise had.
BTW, the Love Story thing is more distortion. Gore made the comment that "according to a news paper article he had read, he was the basis of the characters in Love Story". The reporters wrote it up claiming that Gore said this... So when Segal contradicts Gore, he is really contradicting the newspaper article that Gore read. Sorry to mess you up with more facts. #18 - GOP distortion would be refreshing if it wasn't so damn cliche. :( It's always so bizarre how Republicans like to interpret things for you. Like I'm not smart enough to make up my own mind so I have to be told "He is very much like the school kid who wants to impress everyone and so lies and exagerrates to boost his image." But if the "lies" are coming from GOP reporters, who am I to believe? |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/25/2002 7:54:51 PM |
|
So the other rumor floating about that I haven't yet been able to find the root source for... Apparently GW Bush's previous oil company ventures were funded in part by Bin Laden. This goes back to Senior Bush's ties with the CIA and the funding of Bin Laden in Afghanistan, which resulted in some kickbacks to the GW Bush oil companies.
Unfortunately I heard that one in an interview with Michael Moore, who has been accurate over the years but tends to exagerrate a bit. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/25/2002 7:55:56 PM |
|
#22 - It's always amazing to me how viscious Republicans get when their lies are laid bare in public. Why are you attacking Gore and the Democrats so much?
|
| #9 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/25/2002 10:34:28 PM |
|
It's called redirection, soda. When their chosen guy is an alcoholic, cokehead with a DUI, what else can you do to draw the public's attention away from reality?
Check these out soda: http://www.bushorchimp.com/ http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/26/2002 6:06:13 AM |
|
I'm a Libertarian (kinda), but I am more than willing to let fly personal insults against both the President AND Gore. Sometimes, personal insults are quite justified.
I think, however, Gore is a fare less dangerous liar than Bush. I don't feel like qualifing my statements right now (it's 6am, I have stuff to do), but I don't make them flipantly. Let's just say that Gore tells little white lies, while Bush tells lies that matter. I don't like either kind of lie, but one can be more easily defended than the other. Bush ran on the honor and integrity platform, but if that's honor and integrity, I would take a Democrat any day. (Gasp!) Here is something to think about. The GOP - Grand Old Party - is actually considerably younger than the Democratic party. White lie? Sure. Honor and integrity? Uh huh... |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/26/2002 11:23:13 AM |
|
#25 - I'm not Libertarian because I don't believe in completely unregulated markets. I think markets should be regulated, but I think regulations should be done fairly so as to not favor one company over another. i.e. in the case of Microsoft I am in favor of regulations as long as they apply to the entire industry, not just a particular company.
#27 - I don't mind if you dislike Gore as long as you have a valid reason for it. Calling him a liar is a pretty pathetic though, because the only lies are the ones people like you tell. RMD - I don't know. The original party Jefferson formed was called the Democratic-Republicans. It became just the Democrats in the 1840's. The Republican party was "formed" in the 1850's by a disaffected Democrat in Wisconsin, and named Republican to link itself back with the original party of Jefferson. |
| #12 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/26/2002 11:50:38 AM |
|
#28 If you are referring to me, those are not insults, they are facts.
Bush also went AWOL from his National Guard post. |
| #13 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 2/26/2002 11:54:25 AM |
| Sodablue, I must say I love the way you argue your points using the facts. Do you notice that when you use facts against the other side they just get more vicious and nasty? |
| #14 By 1845 (12.254.231.11) at 2/26/2002 1:34:03 PM |
|
Soda, I thought the republicans in the 1850's were born partly of disgruntled Democrats and also of dissolved Whigs. Since the Whigs themselves derrived from disoloved Fedralists, I'd say (depending on how you accepted the inheritanc tree) that the Democrats and Republicans are about the same age.
RMD The "O" in GOP doesn't stand for oldest, so I don't see anything dishonorable or lacking integrity in that. Certainly there are many parties that have come about since the Republicans, so the Repulicans are in fact on the of the older parties. Maybe the Democrats should call themselves the GOP too (Grand Oldest Party). Never thought I'd post about 1800's political parties on this site. Hmm, just a little off topic I think. |
| #15 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/26/2002 8:31:53 PM |
|
Soda, I'm talking roots. The GOP has its modern roots in the Northern Whig party of the Civil War. AKA, the party that came out in strong opposition of slavery. The Democrats have their roots all the way back to the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson in Washington's cabinet. (The Federalists vs. the Republicans... which were actually modern day Democrats... kinda).
#35 - I'm certainly not a Democrat. Ironically, I'm more "conservative" than you are. (Assuming you're a Republican.) At any rate, let me explain why I think Bush (and the Republicans) is more dangerous than Democrats. Republicans want to force their morality on everybody else. They pretend to want smaller government, but all they really want is for the government to take less of their money, and spend more time enforcing "traditional" values. I find this so utterly repulsive I don't even know where to begin to address it. Democrats want bigger government because in their mind that will solve the problems associated with the free market. Ironically, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that regulation is what caused those problems to begin with, but that's another discussion. Democrats also, at least a little bit, try to enforce a kind of morality, but to a *much* lesser extent. I still don't understand how people can be so arbitrary in their beliefs. The Republican mantra is "smaller government," yet they are the ones who started, and happily enforce, insanity like the Drug War. They are also the first in line when it comes to giving handouts to huge corporations after 9/11... many of whom haven't paid a dime in taxes for many years. They are also the ones who prevent states from voting to legalize things like assisted suicide. Smaller government? Baloney. THAT is why I fear Republican rule more than I fear the Democrats. The Democrats are simply misguided. The Republicans know exactly what they want, and why they want it. Ever since the Christian-Right started controlling the party, it has become completely antithetical to what they used to stand for -- Freedom. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/26/2002 10:01:20 PM |
|
#36 - You are a very confused person. You keep claiming to refute what I've said, and yet you keep presenting evidence to support it. Those are the weirdest arguments one can ever get into.
#34 - Good point. Hmm.... #35 - I wasn't talking about Bushes lies, I was talking about your own which are archived here. |
| #17 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 2/27/2002 9:20:30 AM |
|
#36 & 37 I said more than, "Duh, I like what dat guy said." I also talked about how the other side gets "more vicious and nasty" when they can't face the facts. Thanks for illustrating my point so clearly.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:12:00 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
