Print - Microsoft Settles Iowa Class Action Suit

Microsoft on Wednesday reached a preliminary settlement in its Iowa class action antitrust lawsuit. Because the settlement is still awaiting court approval, however, the terms of the settlement will not be released until later this year. The plaintiffs had been seeking $330 million from Microsoft.

When the case was filed in 2000, plaintiffs in the Iowa antitrust case alleged that Microsoft had overcharged customers in that state for software purchased since 1994. Despite similarities with the nearly 100 other state-based antitrust cases that Microsoft has faced over the years, the Iowa case differs from all but one other case in a single key way: It actually went all the way to trial. A class action suit in Minnesota also went to trial, but was settled two months after the trial began. All of the other state-based suits against Microsoft were dismissed or settled prior to trial.

As has been the case in most other state-based cases Microsoft has settled, proceeds from the Iowa settlement will at least partially be used to purchase computers and software for underprivileged schools: Half of any unclaimed funds will be provided to the Iowa Department of Education for this purpose.

"One of the best aspects of resolving this case is that we can provide much needed resources to underprivileged schools," said Microsoft associate general counsel Rich Wallis. "We're happy to have this matter behind us so we can focus on the future and build the next generation of products and innovations that enrich the lives of people around the world."

Polk County District Court will hold a hearing in April for preliminary approval of the settlement. If approved, the settlement will be finalized in late August.

Has Microsoft mended it's ways? The Vista pricing strategy is just part of a money grab and why is Vista so much more expensive in Europe? At least double the price. Now I hear that you cannot set Firefox as the default browser in Vista. The DRM in Vista alone makes me not want to upgrade.

This reason Europe cost more is because it is a different version with a feature removed. Makes sense doesn't it.

"Now I hear that you cannot set Firefox as the default browser in Vista. The DRM in Vista alone makes me not want to upgrade." FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Yes, you can easily set your default browser to Firefox. The DRM in Vista is only enabled when playing HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray Discs, and even then it is only enabled when the content provider requests it. Without the DRM, it will be impossible to play those HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs in Linux or OS X, if the content providers decide to enable the DRM protection.

"Now I hear that you cannot set Firefox as the default browser in Vista." How do you even believe this crap?

sharky: These types of people only believe information if it is anti-MS. It it is pro-MS, it must have been made by MS $hills.

Has anyone checked GNU/Linux and OpenOffice.Org lately? They have involved to a much user friendly situation. For example you may try for free CentOS, Scientific Linux (both derived from the sources of an Enterprise-level GNU/Linux distribution), or Ubuntu, accompanied with the latest OpenOffice.Org and see that it is far more stable than the crashing OS. $$$$$ overprices its software while at the same time it is *holding back* innovation with immoral monopolistic tactics.

"These types of people only believe information if it is anti-MS. It it is pro-MS, it must have been made by MS $hills." It must be true. I've heard all kinds of things about Vista from people. A couple of months someone told me he didn't want to upgrade to it because he'd heard from people that one wouldn't be able to install third party software on Vista. I read somewhere recently that the UAC prompt pops up everytime one tries to run a program. I read somewhere else that the DRM scheme is meant to prevent one from non-DRMd music on the computer. Amazing!

"...meant to prevent one from non-DRMd music on the computer." Correction: meant to prevent one from playing non-DRMd music..."

"...and see that it is far more stable than the crashing OS." By "Crashing OS", you mean Windows ME, right? Open Office implemented a ribbon-like feature? Wow! I guess I'll have to look at it then. It looks like the Linux fanboys are out in full force today... ------------- captcha - FUDrxk How appropriate!

"$$$$$ overprices its software while at the same time it is *holding back* innovation with immoral monopolistic tactics." Let's play the guessing game! Hmm... Could be Apple(iPod+iTunes+FairPlay), Adobe (art software market), or a number of other companies. My guess is that you are referring to Micro$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$uck$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!111!!!1!!!!1!!, known by knowledgeable people as "Microsoft."

captcha: I mean all the BSOD versions. NateB2: I mean $$$$$ that produces the BSOD Operating System, *not* any company that you are mentioning. Do not make a mistake. Few years ago, I was an $$$$$ user and fan. However since last year, I have moved to GNU/Linux. True, it may be a bit more compex to set anything up, but if you use a stable distribution (there are free distributions of Enterprise-level stability as I mentioned above) and set it up, then it is *very* stable. Its *decentralised* (diversified) nature makes it running even on a problematic hard disk (my HDD had bad sectors, I did an "e2fsck -c -c -C -y", that is a surface scan and repair and am planning to get a new HDD soon). Once you live with GNU/Linux for a couple of months, you see things with another perspective, like what a waste of money much of the "popular" software is. Consider for example this. ext3 file system is a journaling one, and thus it recovers in case of corruption/improper shutdown within seconds, almost without any impact of the size of the file system (either 1 GB, 80 GB, or even 8 TB). Also it does not need defragmentation! Also for executing a file in ext3, there is an additional execute permission, so viruses cannot propagate easily as they do in BSOD. Not to mention that in BSOD I had to manually optimise the TCP/IP configuration because it was setup more for dial up networking than for broadband! In GNU/Linux the networking implementation is self-optimised AFAIK, and I do not have to spend my time with "TCP Window", MTU, etc. Not perform any registry cleaning, file checking, defragmentation, virus scanning, tcp configuration, formats all the time. BSOD has many weaknesses, and most people consider it necessary to buy and use additional software for dealing with these OS holes! When I switched to GNU/Linux I was amazed to find out that there is no need for defragmentation, when I searched for a defragmentation tool. And from the other aformentioned features.

Microsoft executives were awed by Apple's just-added desktop search and acknowledged that what they did in Windows Vista would be directly compared with Mac OS X. Internal Microsoft email messages from 2004 reveal that company evangelists and executives were awed by Apple's just-added desktop search and acknowledged that what they did in Windows Vista would be directly compared with Mac OS X. The messages, which were filed as evidence in an Iowa state court trying a Microsoft antitrust case, were between several company evangelists and executives, including Jim Allchin, the head of Windows development efforts at the time. The Vista, then "Longhorn," evangelists had just returned from the June 2004 Apple Worldwide Developers Conference. Lenn Pryor, former director of Microsoft's platform evangelism, said Spotlight, the new Mac OS X 10.4 search tool that Apple chief executive Steve Jobs highlighted at the conference, was "amazing. It is like I just got a free pass to Longhorn-land today." Pryor now works for Skype Lawyers suing Microsoft on behalf of Iowa consumers claim to have evidence that the company is withholding key APIs (application programming interfaces) from competing software companies, a violation of its 2002 settlement of its antitrust case with the US DoJ (Department of Justice). That evidence, according to testimony on 10 January , includes an expert review of Windows XP source code provided to the plaintiffs' lawyers before the Comes vs. Microsoft trial began in December.

The captchas I put up were not faked. "Consider for example this. ext3 file system is a journaling one, and thus it recovers in case of corruption/improper shutdown within seconds, almost without any impact of the size of the file system (either 1 GB, 80 GB, or even 8 TB). " So is NTFS. It is amazing how many errors can accumulate on the drive before Windows refuses to boot. "Also for executing a file in ext3, there is an additional execute permission, so viruses cannot propagate easily as they do in BSOD. " NTFS has had this feature for a *long* time. The problem (until Vista) was that every user, unless specified, was logged in as an administrator. Given the facts you gave to me, I must assume you are talking about Windows ME. I have *never* seen a BSOD in 2000/XP/Vista while configuring network settings. "I had to manually optimise the TCP/IP configuration because it was setup more for dial up networking than for broadband! In GNU/Linux the networking implementation is self-optimised AFAIK, and I do not have to spend my time with "TCP Window", " You lost me there-I have never heard of the "TCP Window". XP and Vista have *always* been optimized for broadband. "Not perform any registry cleaning, file checking, defragmentation, virus scanning, tcp configuration, formats all the time." I do not do any of those on Vista (except when I suspect an HD is going bad, in which case I run chkdsk). Virus scanning is automatic and completely transparent (with OneCare). Speaking of viruses, there are exactly 0 so far that can get past Vista's UAC feature, so I technically don't need antivirus software. Regarding defragmentation, I have been using Vista for several months (since it went to RTM) with a full 80 gig HD, and have not noticed any slowdown due to defragmentation. Vista does an excellent job keeping the HD from being fragmented. Please clarify which version of Windows you are describing. "BSOD" is not descriptive.

I had heard a lot about Ubuntu and its ease of use and decided to give it a try some time back. I had a friend a Google (who was a huge Open Source proponent at one time but had eventually switched back to Windows) help me out with it. The installation was simple and quick and everything seemed to work when it was completed ... everything but the internal Wireless and the sound cards. After two frustrating weeks of struggling with it, we finally decided to give up. I had a little more success with OpenSuse, which recognized the sound card.

shark47: GNU/Linux gets much improved year to year. If you are looking for the latest and greatest with *enough* stability (like Win98 or better), give a try to the latest Fedora Core. If you are looking for Enterprise-level stability give a try to Scientific Linux (SL) or CentOS. I am using SL myself + the latest stable OpenOffice.Org (currently 2.1) downloaded from its site and I am pretty satisfied. Version 5 of both CentOS and SL will be available in a couple of months at the latest, as far as I can guess. NateB2: My purpose was not to start a flame, just mentioned the facts as I see them. NTFS provides only some metadata journaling. ext3 has 3 journaling modes, with SL, CentOS, and I guess Fedora having as the default the "ordered". Ordered keeps only metadata journaling but in a way that you get never a corrupted filesystem. It journals the metadata *after* all data have been written on the disk, so when recovering, it just "rewinds" a bit back. As a fallback, you have the ability to perform a full filesystem check, but this is not needed - I guess - never. Regarding the permissions, I did not use the right word, I meant "execute attribute". English isn't my native language. So if you want to execute a file in ext3, you have to set the execute attribute. About the networking, check google with these 3 words: mtu tcp window. ext3 is *designed* to reduce fragmentation. No tricks like background defragmentation at real time. In GNU/Linux, since each application has its own configuration files or directories in the user's directory, the OS is stable, even if some application or configuration file gets corrupted. No tricks like "data or registry restore" are needed. As of antivirus, I am using F-Prot for GNU/Linux along with xfprot (GUI) which are free for home users, but due to the execution attribute, and other security features (like SELinux), it isn't needed. :-) I am just having it perhaps used to have one during the old OS days. :-)

"when I suspect an HD is going bad, in which case I run chkdsk" you should try SpinRite sometime. it's made by Steve Gibson - one of the TWIT's. ;) it's the best on the market, hands-down. this is true REGARDLESS of which OS you use. although it doesn't recognize every single partition format known to man, it does support most. so far it supports: "all NTFS all DOS FAT all Linux file systems (gnu-user pay attention here) Novell Mac (if operated on a PC) anything else (including a TiVo hard drive)" you can use it to determine the likelihood of a drives imminent failure even before it happens by monitoring properties such as SMART status. i use it as a app for in-house data recovery and diagnostic services as part of my business and it's proved its usefulness time-and-time-again. for end users, it sure beats OnTrack's $600 basic recovery services. grc.com/spinrite for advanced recovery such as motor and/or circuitboard failure, i would still recommend OnTrack in a heartbeat though, as no software can fix those problems. OnTrack charges $75 for a diagnostic and they give you a binder with a printed list of every single file on the drive and the probability of recovery. at that point, the job is actually already done, but in order to get your data, you pay anywhere from $600-$3000 depending on the complexity of the job. "Basic" recovery consists of retrieving only mildly damaged or deleted files. the most advanced recovery is when they take the drive apart in a clean room and attach the heads to a reading machine, etc. ontrack.com XP

Clarification: In GNU/Linux, since each application has its own configuration files or directories in the user's directory, the OS is stable, even if some application or configuration file gets corrupted. No tricks like "data or registry restore" are needed = The OS is much more harder to fail. Of course hardware dies eventually.

@Waethorn Yes, I have heard of SpinRite. I haven't used it yet, but I have heard great things about it. If I ever need it, I will certainly check it out. In my previous post, I was talking about minor errors and other small issues that are related to a drive going bad. @gnu-user Yes, the ext3 format does include some nice features, but includes several *major* disadvantages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3 Disadvantages: possible data loss when defragmenting, no transparent compression, no "Undelete" functionality, and "ext3 filesystems cannot be fscked while the filesystem is mounted for writing. " NTFS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS The feature list is *much* longer, and the capabilities of NTFS are quite extensive. For data reliability, it is best to stay with NTFS.

"ext3 is *designed* to reduce fragmentation" the problem with ext3 is that it finds the first free space hole that's sized big enough to fit the file before writing. if it's a big file, and if the first free space that is big enough is towards the end of the drive, the file will access slower, since that's where the sectors are further apart. otherwise, if it can't find a free hole big enough, it'll just write it in the typical "Windows method" which is: start writing at the first free space hole, and keep writing to each free space hole until the entire file is written, which will then just fragment the file. with a lack of defragmentation tools for that OS, i'd rather use background defragmentation to keep my files each in a continuous block. there are other benefits to the "Windows method" too. starting in Windows XP, files were rearranged so that commonly used files were placed closer to the beginning of the drive to improve disk access while also defragmenting them. ext3 doesn't address that at all. in Windows Vista, however, SuperFetch further improves performance by not only indexing file locations in RAM (the way the drive caching in previous Windows systems worked), but now it will also dump portions of file contents to RAM. this is similar to how the old, but uncommon DOS drive caching program called "FAST!" worked. it was hugely faster than SmartDrive. often a drive wouldn't even need to be accessed because commonly used files could be read from RAM as if it were stored on an invisible RAM Drive. XP

@gnu-user Vista has drastically improved the stability of Windows by modifying how programs write to the registry: "Data Redirection: Also known as data virtualization, this virtualizes the registry and certain parts of the file system for applications running in the protected user context. Reads and writes in the HKLM\Software section of the Registry by user-mode applications while running as a standard user, as well as to folders such as "Program Files", are "redirected" to the user's profile. The process of reading and writing on the profile data and not on the application-intended location is completely transparent to the application. " -source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista The registry is/was a great idea; however, apps constantly misuse it, to the point where we were in XP. The idea to have all the app/Windows configuration settings in one searchable place was an excellent idea. Regarding the mtu tcp window,I Vista automatically optimizes it to your network, no configuration needed. -source: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=1999401&enterthread=y

NateB2: I think we can't reach an agreement, but only to a flame, so I will not insist much. :-) In any case, GNU/Linux is out there, you can check it whenever you want, many times in the future. :-) Anyway, I can't understand this: "possible data loss when defragmenting". As I said, no defragmentation is necessary! There is not "filesystem compression" in ext3, so far, AFAIK, but how many users in BSOD are using it? In any case, in GNU/Linux world there are choices (I just found that SquashFS provides it) and ongoing development. Regarding ext series, ext4 is under development and may include it. Myself I am using LVM2 (a higher level of data organisation) which provides many advantages. Adding and removing hard disks and seeing them as one, resizing, data migration, etc. I am not using these features anyway, I am a home user. I used resizing one time though, when I had two HDDs and the one became very problematic, and reduced the volume to the size of the one which is less problematic, till I get a new one (perhaps when SL 5 gets released). The last, had bad blocks, marked them, but the OS keeps being bullet proof. In the old days, I would have done many formats in the meantime. :-) In no case, I consider NTFS "better than ext3". I think the opposite is true, especially when using LVM2. Also NTFS can not be checked and repaired while it is mounted, too.

And there is undelete functionality. ext3 on purpose zeroes the file pointer after deletion. If you want undelete functionality, there is a Trash (I am using GNOME), and you select "Move To Trash" instead of the "Delete" option when you right-click. Give GNU/Linux a try, and see how good it is and in what price. :-)

@gnu-user I would not consider this a "flamewar." I would classify this as a rational debate. If I started insulting and ranting at you, and you returned the favor, then *that* would be a flamewar. NTFS also includes every feature mentioned in the Wikipedia page for LVM2. I can easily create a dynamic drive in XP/Vista, using the excellent "Disk Management" tool. Also, you haven't yet told me what version of Windows you last used. It sounds like you stopped with Windows 9x/ME. You should really try Vista out. :-) In fact, you can d/l and use Vista for 30 days without paying a dime.

@gnu-user Regarding the undelete functionality, NTFS provides *true* undelete functionality, i.e. you can recover a file even if it was permanently deleted. Yes, you can move a file to the trash (or "Recycle Bin"), but I am talking about inadvertant permanent file deletions. Vista and Windows Server 2003 go a step further and provide a "Restore Previous Versions" functionality which will allow you to restore a previous version of a file, like a word document you accidentally saved over. The previous versions are stored in the free space on the HD, so no extra space is used. As the HD fills up, the previous versions are deleted. This feature has been a life-saver for me several times.

"In fact, you can d/l and use Vista for 30 days without paying a dime." where? XP

Vista will let you install it without a product key. It will work for 30 days w/out activation. I thought MS would have a link to d/l it but after a bit of research, I couldn't find a link on their website. I guess the bandwidth would have been extremely expensive. There are always other methods. :-) One innovative group combined the x86 and the x64 versions of Vista on one standard DVD. Each is loadable from either the boot menu or via auto-play. Regarding the install process, any Vista DVD will work (a friend's, for instance) and when the product key screen comes up, click "next." You can now legally try Vista for 30 days before you need to activate. Also, you can test drive both Vista and Office 2007 online at Microsoft's site (IE *is* required, however).

ok. ya i know about all the other stuff, but i couldn't find a d/l link either. when u said that you could d/l it, my ears perked up.... doesn't matter to me though. i've got Vista Business from my Action Pack sub. XP

"ext3 is *designed* to reduce fragmentation" Read that statement...it is designed to REDUCE fragmentation, not eliminate. Waethorn was right on with his statements regarding the use of the physical space on the hard drive...otherwise, an 80GB drive could register full as early as at 50% capacity. Many array manufacturers provide defragmentation utilities that work at the array level to avoid this...so the OS does not need to be hindered with it...of course that is great in an enterprise environment, but not for the home user. Since there are limited utilities available for Linux defragmentation, a common way to defragment a Linux file system is to do a backup to tape or other media, delete and recreate the file system, then restore the files. This works on Windows and other OS's as well. Oh, and by refusing to call Microsoft's OS Windows and instead calling it "BSOD" you appear to be attempting to start a flame war... --tayme

NateB2: The last Windows version I used is XP SP2+. Also I tried Vista Beta (don't remember which Beta) that I downloaded from MS site with a serial provided by MS. I have started with PCs since 1989, with DOS 3.30. In summary I have used, DOS 3.30, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 6.22, Windows 3.1, 3.11 Workstation, Windows 95, 98, 98B, Me (probably briefly I did not like it), NT 4.0 Workstation, 2000 Pro, XP Pro, XP Pro SP2, Vista Ultimate Beta. Then I migrated to GNU/Linux, currently using SL 4.4. Yes one create dynamic volumes in XP (and presumambly in Vista), however the default is a regular partition. In SL, the default is LVM2 volumes. Also I am not sure if one can migrate all files to another dynamic volume in XP/Vista, or resize partitions without a third party disk manager like partition magic. Regarding undelete, I do not like it. When you delete something you delete, otherwise you can use the Trash, or do not make Delete option available. Under Gnome the default is the Trash, and Nautilus the file manager, provides an option "Include a Delete command that bypasses Trash". This is what I have chosen, so I have two options available, Move to Trash and Delete. Otherwise Trash is used. tayme: Defragmentation, *is not needed*. I have heavily installed, removed and reinstalled packages, and the fragmentation is ~3-4%. Also there is available a defrag script on the net, that defrags independently from the file system that is used, if you really want to do that. The backup and restore for defragmentation is an outdated method nowadays. In most cases, defragmentation is not needed in ext3, because the file system *is designed* to reduce fragmentation extensively.

my first "real" computer was Tandy 1000 SL (remember Tandy?). before that i had a TRS-80 Colour Computer 2, which i don't really count as a computer persay. yes those were the "Radio Shack days". XP

It's "per se", not "persay", "Waethorn/PC-Bonch". Hey, I'm just trying to help. I don't want you to look uneducated (and exactly when are you going to start capitalizing the first words in your sentences? Is the "shift" key broken on your homemade keyboard?). ----- Oh, and related to the actual story at hand: http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_tric_1.html This company deserves to go down hard. They never will, of course, but they deserve to.

Part Two: http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_tric_4.html

btw: "LOTSA-bonch", "persay" is an American slang spelling. "per se" is actually from a Latin spelling. funny how you didn't know that. that's ok, you're just a bit slow to catch on. ;) XP

"Waethorn/PC-Bonch", you won't find "persay" in any standard dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persay). It's not even listed anywhere as an "American slang spelling" except in your post. Simple as that. " "per se" is actually from a Latin spelling. funny how you didn't know that." Actually, "per se" is of Greek origin--it's a Latin translation of "kath auto". I refuse to take lessons in English from someone who can't even capitalize the first words of his sentences (and then inisists that his misspellings are the result of the use of some mythical "American slang". Coming from a Canadian, that's particularly hilarious.) ;-)

"per se" is of Greek origin--it's a Latin translation of "kath auto". i never said it wasn't. i only said "per se" is a Latin spelling. you should really learn to read. oh, but you can easily search online dictionaries and the Wikipedia when you feel the need to pull a fact out of your a$$ eh? "persay" is a contraction of the two words "per" & "say" meaning approximately "in what is described" (the word "say" is the general subjective tense of the words "being said") or often as a replacement for the word "exactly". as in, "Mac users aren't all stupid [exactly]/[per say], but if the ones that frequent this site are any representation of them as a group, they sure make me question their intelligence sometimes". they are also sometimes written as separate words, but they are an American adopted spelling of the Latin "per se". in International English, the Latin spelling is often used, but i choose to use the more "commoner" term for you yanks to understand. you should really bone up on your grammar skills. maybe when your IQ surpasses your age, you'd understand this stuff. XP

"Waethorn/PC-Bonch", "persay" is not a word. Plain and simple. Talk about pulling a "fact" out of your a$$...did your head get in the way when you tried? There is no "American adopted spelling of the Latin 'per se' ". It's only spelled one way--the correct way. When you can show me a legitimate reference that indicates otherwise, I'll concede. But you can't. Because there isn't. "you [sic] should really bone up on your grammar skills. maybe [sic] when your IQ surpasses your age, you'd [sic] understand this stuff." Two capitalization errors and one usage error in two sentences. Pot, meet kettle.

you should understand how to use the term [sic]....it might actually help your argument if you knew how to use it properly. "Two capitalization errors and one usage error in two sentences." now thar's some real good grammar skills u gots der boy! learn some grammatical semantics while you're at it. "It's only spelled one way--the correct way" and yet try to argue that about American words that drop a "u" where the rest of the word doesn't. sorry, but you can't. Americans like to "think different". if you really think that "per say" isn't used, just try it in your favourite (there's a "u-word") search engine. in several books that i own (yes books, i don't relegate myself to only reading falsely edited community sites beginning with the word "wiki") i've also seen it used as a contraction. XP

My use of the word "term" was not incorrect. The dictionary defines "term" as "any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance." You, on the other hand, still can't capitalize properly. So much for the Canadian Educational System. "learn [sic] some grammatical semantics while you're at it." Informal communication (such as posting on message boards) allows for sentence fragments. As for your continued defense of your ignorance, "Waethorn/PC-Bonch", there's this thing called a "dictionary". Show me your bastardized spelling of "per se" in a dictionary (listed as proper usage, or even as slang) and I'll acquiesce to your superior grasp of the language. Here's one unimpeachable source that says you're wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persey Until you can prove otherwise, STFU. "if you really think that "per say" isn't used, just try it in your favourite (there's a "u-word") search engine." By that logic, I should accept that "alot" is a word because so many people spell "a lot" incorrectly. Are you actually defending the misuse of the language because you can find improper usage on a search engine? Honestly, do you ever listen to your insane ramblings? You really are an a$$. I thought it was an act, but you really are. It's shocking.

"My use of the word "term" was not incorrect." it wasn't the use of the word "term", it was the term "[sic]" that you use incorrectly. now that's a really boneheaded mistake! "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persey" AHAHAHAHAHA! funny, but you just proved my point for me. thx losta. if you look on that page, you can find "per say" listed under Encyclopedia terms with a link to English translations of Latin phrases! "Until you can prove otherwise, STFU." i just did! you sir, should "STFU!" XP

will - Very true...these guys just need to accept the fact that they will never agree on anything and move on with life. To waste so much time and energy arguing on an IT message board(actually, not even that...its a comments section) over insignificant facts is sad. I think that they both need to get away from the keyboard and out of the house and get a life. Whether they use a Mac or PC, what they are doing is just plain ignorant!!! --tayme

"i can't help it if losta wants to argue truth." Yeah, but you can help stop a dumb argument, this all started around what? 'persay' Now I'm not gonna call your word 'fake', but wouldn't you think it would be a safe bet by a person to do so? I refer you to an abridged english dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/persay http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/per%20se Why can't you just say you spelled the word wrong, lol.