Linked by Kevin Russo on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:15 UTC
Editorial Though Microsoft is the behemoth that everyone loves to hate, the computing world actually owes a lot to Bill Gates and co. And though it's possible that someone else would have blazed the trail to "a PC on every desktop," in our world, it was Microsoft that did it. Update: Now with page breaks! (My fault -- David)
Order by: Score:
Yeah, thanks to Microsoft ...
by Darius on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:46 UTC

If it weren't for them, we'd all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.

...
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:47 UTC

Is not fair to thank just one man, there are many who made it possible.

Thanks?
by Dave on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:48 UTC

How about "Thanks, Microsoft. Now please go away."

The author should consider the use of paragraphs -- it will make his article easier to read.

And ending it with, "We may never know," doesn't exactly reinforce his point.

v Ye gads!
by Devon on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:49 UTC
migration
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:49 UTC

"An inexperienced user may not even notice the difference between WindowsXP and distributions such as Lycoris, Linspire formerly Lindows and ELX (Everyone's Linux) These distros and several others, deliberately copy a Windows scheme. Providing similar desktop backgrounds and familiar icons to those in the Windows world. These upstart Linux distributions are therefore able to ride on Windows' coat-tails, and provide a computing experience that people are familiar with, thanks to the consolidation of the PC industry that Microsoft effected. "

this makes sense from a migration aspect though gnome and many other Desktop environments and work environments are not mere clones...

"If it weren't for them, we'd all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2."

os/2 wasnt a bad operating system to be using..

It should also be noted that UI itself in different operating systems are not much different from each other anymore.

Mac OS X is immediately familiar if you have ever used any GUI. so is anything like CDE or syllable.


v Ahhh! My eyes!
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:50 UTC
v Text format?
by Diego on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:50 UTC
Windows and "user computing"
by Diego on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:54 UTC

The reason why everyone started using PCs was because hardware was cheap and capable enought. Microsoft put the operative system, but any other company (apple, ibm) could have put theirs.

If hardware were too expensive and it wasn't able to draw windows 95-like desktops or it were to slow windows 95 would have never succeed. Hardware was the key, along with it's capatibility to run older programs (msdos programs)

OS/2
by RE: Darius on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:57 UTC

I was using a machine that had OS/2 on it today at work, OS/2's not dead :-)

v I know...
by richard on Wed 15th Dec 2004 19:59 UTC
How About Microsoft Thanking Tax Payers?
by linux_baby on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:03 UTC

Hmm .. let's see ..

Mirosoft has how many billions in cash/rainy day money??

Bill Gates is the second richest man in the world (after that IKEA guy)

Paul Allen is a billionaire

And Microsoft has minted more millionaires than any other company I know.

Shouldn't Microsoft be the one thanking its tax payers?

Microsoft didn't succeed, Everyone else failed.
by RonG on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:11 UTC

That Microsoft is at the top right now is due less to its own competence, and more to the incompetence of its competitors.
If OS/2 had succeeded, people would be complaining about IBM ( and I very much doubt IBM would be selling a cheap OS ). Atari, Commodore both failed not so much because of competition, but more because of their own executives. And Apple isn't in top spot right now because it is not a software company, but a hardware retailer; it could not supply the entire market with machines, and it certainly does not want to supply the marktet for low-end machines.

v Terrible formatting
by Wolfgang Schreurs on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:17 UTC
I'm not a Mac user but
by Redneck Rampage on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:17 UTC

We'd have been better off if they had the monopoly.

....
by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:17 UTC

Mmm, not that bad an article... However, I think that the revolution that took place (getting a computer into everyone's home) wasn't dependant on MS at all-- If MS hadn't been there, Apple would've done it, or, Be for that matter.

PS: Maybe Eugenia or David can throw in some p tags?

More Microsoft didn't succeed.
by RonG on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:18 UTC

My comment above doesn't mean I hate Microsoft, nor do I respect Gates any less.
My point is that whoever was at the top, the little whiners would try to put them down, and that often competitors die not because of competition, but because of their own faults.

I know it's redundant
by ralph on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:19 UTC

but please give us some paragraphs.

The article is simply unreadable now.

little correction
by ChrisI on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:19 UTC

the first electronic computer was the Z3(built with relays), the first computer with tubes was the ENIAC

RE: Diego
by Yamin on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:20 UTC

"The reason why everyone started using PCs was because hardware was cheap and capable enought. Microsoft put the operative system, but any other company (apple, ibm) could have put theirs. "

The question is obvious. Why didn't they? Why didn't IBM trounce MS? Why didn't apple destroy MS? They were both big players with big pockets, lots of marketting people, connections...What made MS succeed above them?

The article points to the fact that MS focussed only on software and took advantage on what ultimately became on open PC hardware market, while many others were still stuck on hte hardware/software package with servicing. It wanted people to have their own PCs, not some terminal that took everything off some server.

Who knows if the unix mentality had won out, would hardware be as cheap? Would we have ended up with a client architecture? Would the inherent complexity of a networked OS hindered the acceptance of PCs to the masses? Would the inherent network abilities have propelled the internet to be bigger and faster, and more connected than ever before?

As the article ends of saying. We don't know what might have been? We do know that many big names had a chance to drive computing to the masses. We do know MS was the one that did it. We do know what is and part of the success of what is...is due to Microsoft.

Well, kind of thanks...
by Mat on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:28 UTC

The dominance of superbly marketed but otherwise mediocre MS software did *some* good, actually.
After all, it was MS bloat that demanded ever more capable hardware to make it run well enough, thus making powerful PCs cheap and accessible. On the other hand, the sound of fans under my desk, struggling to cool my system down is getting kind of annoying, lately.

Diversity is always good and neccessary. We still do have it, but looking back at the 1980's and early 90's the diversity and distinctivness of personal and home computers was just a joy to look at.

I, for one especially miss the now virtually extinct species of home computers. Those systems could teach modern PCs a lesson or two on what a computer as an appliance should look like. Easy, stable, lightweight, always ready to go. They'll be back!

v RE THE ARTICLE
by Anand on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:29 UTC
What Gives?
by Laughing Hard on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:30 UTC

Apple and IBM got the computers on the Desktops but still Joe and Jane average don't all have computers. It's going to take something entirely different to bring computing to the common man.

> My point is that whoever was at the top, the little whiners
> would try to put them down, and that often competitors die
> not because of competition, but because of their own faults.

Not all companies which are in a dominant position were also convicted (not just accused) of federal anti-trust violations in the process of getting there.

Microsoft has indeed been the market winner. It's just too bad that they weren't content to let market forces make the decision for them. Instead, they engaged in a plethora of well-documented activities (some blatantly illegal, others ethically questionable, a few admittedly quite brillant) in order to overcome their competition and dominate the desktop marketplace.

It's sad that we'll never know what might have happened if other companies would have been able to offer their products to the public and have them judged based on their merits. I suspect the desktop computing world would be a somewhat more secure and functional world today...

No thanks to M$ for monopoly
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:33 UTC

We would had more innovation in the PC arena if M$ didnt choke all compition thru its monopoly. Thanks to Java and Linux/OSS/GNU we have some relief. I wish OS2 was around then we wouldnt have suffered so much of BSOD and security issue of windows. Windows is the worst OS out there.

v Beware the FUD
by ulib on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:35 UTC
We could also say
by Nokin on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:40 UTC
Ehh
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:46 UTC

If we understand that m$ maked the computers cheaper and easier to use, I still dont know how they did it. Were they also the people who made the light bulb cheaper? Or cars cheaper?

Through the normal course of supply and demand and miniturisation computers were always going to be cheap. M$ were in the right place with the right contracts at the right time.

Today you still cannot purchase a computer without a M$ licence due to their forsight in contract licencing. When I spec up servers, more than half the price is software and client access licences. When i spec up new mid range workstations, half the price is m$ software licences (office, windows, CAL for filesharing and exchange). If they wanted to make computers cheaper, they would drop their licence charges (ie tax) and make the most expensive part the hardware.

Also, Paragraphs would make the article easy to read. I stopped reading it after the 3rd line. I've read these comments before. Its funny that nowadays there are alot less m$ zealots around.

v Re: Thanks Redmond!
by troy banther on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:49 UTC
Re: Yeah, thanks to Microsoft ...
by dpi on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:55 UTC

os/2 wasnt a bad operating system to be using..

Neither was AmigaOS. Personally, i did not found my OS/2 WARP version particulary stable. Most of the time, i hang around in MSDOS as well.

PS: Indeed, paragraphs. One important aspect i urge a writer to become aware is to reflect how the reader will experience the article. Thats possible in some extend; readability is one of them. Especially important if you try to reach a wide audience.

Jerk
by Chris on Wed 15th Dec 2004 20:57 UTC

You should thank Intel, and other companies who produced and designed affordable computer parts! Not the people who supplied the software, to which there is better competition.
You absolutely have to be kidding; this is so insulting to every computer engineer (and I'm a computer science major!) out there; I can't believe you let this be posted Eugenia.
Honestly, this is offensive. You're not only giving undue credit, you're stealing it from those who deserve it!

v mine eyes!
by Devilotx on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:01 UTC
v Drivel
by Silent Majority on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:06 UTC
RE: Yeah, thanks to Microsoft ...
by jimmt on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:09 UTC

By Darius
If it weren't for them, we'd all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.

LOL! We would be better off. ;)

Jim

Yes, indeed
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:10 UTC

Yes, MS has pushed the PC into un-parallel growth. They will also push the 64 bit chips to the mass'.

But, they should be admonished for various underhanded deeds:

1) bundling IE with an OS to prevent other browsers from completing.
2) Providing mediocre software at exorbitant prices
3) Not shipping OS' secure by default.
4) Not using open file formats to prevent competition for entering the market. MS should use an open format and let the best product win. Of course, that will not happen because its not in their best interest.

I could go on but what would be the point?

Thanks for what?
by Perez-Gilaberte on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:15 UTC

The Amiga had autoconfig in 1987 while the PC had to struggle with a mess of manual jumper settings and that joke called PnP on ISA cards. So we had the worst possible hardware I've ever seen coupled with a junk OS called MS-DOS. Until the advent of PCI-based computers and BSD and Linux this so-called personal computer was a total piece of sh*t. So no, I don't thank Microsoft.

Author: note
by Kevin russo on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:16 UTC

Author Note:
I apologize for the the way this article is presented. It was submitted in paragraph form. I dont know what happened. I do know that Eugenia in on Holiday, and has other staff taking care of business. Once again I apologize.
Kevin Russo

Re: Darius (IP: ---.dmotorworks.com)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:20 UTC

If it weren't for them, we'd all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.

Commodore and IBM killed their respective OSes far more effectively than Microsoft could ever have dreamed of doing.

The day MS won the world
by bogomipz on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:31 UTC

Microsoft won the world the day IBM signed a contract stating that every computer they sold should come bundled with an MS operating system. Luckily for Microsoft, the i368 became a wild success, securing DOS as the mainstream OS.

I remember the late 80s and early 90s, when my father had Macs and the few of my friends that had computers at home had PCs running games in DOS and a few simple apps in Win 3.1. The Macs felt truely superiour, both in the hardware and software aspects, although illegally sharing games was easier on the Intel platform.

I'm not even sure Microsoft had to create Windows to "beat" Apple. People would probably be fine with the strictly single-tasking MS-DOS, using fine products such as WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. It was, however, fortunate for MS that they had taken the step up to a graphical shell when they had to compete with IBM's OS/2 and others later on.

IMO, Microsoft didn't win the Desktop Market with Windows, but rather with MS-DOS in the early days. They should thank IBM, as well as the people that bought IBM's products.

Sorry about the page breaks
by David Adams on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:31 UTC

I had just edited this, then I remembered I needed to be at my son's Christmas presentation at pre-school, so I just posted it and ran without double-checking. (Dumb!). So a hearty apology to everyone who slogged through it witout paragraphs.

Author Note
by Kevin russo on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:32 UTC

Author Note:
Mistakes happen. Thank you David for correcting the problem.
Kevin Russo

Thank him for what?
by Abraxas on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:41 UTC

Bill Gates stole computer time to produce his BASIC interpreter. Bill then bought a cheap ripoff of CP/M from another company and licensed it to IBM. Continuing with this theme Microsoft stole Apple's GUI (yeah I know they took it from PARC). Microsoft proceeded to make unstable and unsecure software with a habit of being incredibly late. Microsoft also probably has the largest "library" of vaporware. Why am I supposed to thank them again? Because they made their own software the standard at the expense of others? Only now are people really pushing for open documents and other standards. If the OS business wasn't so monolithic we might have had these things long ago, and maybe, just maybe, someone else would have had the incentive to actually build a better system, with complete compatibility. Instead everyone who doesn't use MS products are stuck reverse-engineering hardware and software and then being treated like criminals for just trying to get our stuff to work. If anything I think Bill set us back ten years or so.

Re: Yamin (IP: ---.navtelcom.com)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:45 UTC

The question is obvious. Why didn't they? Why didn't IBM trounce MS?

IBM screwed it up. They never treated "home computing" seriously and never really tried to sell OS/2.

Why didn't apple destroy MS?

Apple priced themselves out of the "mass market". People think Macs are expensive now, but they're dirt cheap compared to historical pricing.

They were both big players with big pockets, lots of marketting people, connections...What made MS succeed above them?

They were cheaper and better supported.

Who knows if the unix mentality had won out, would hardware be as cheap? Would we have ended up with a client architecture? Would the inherent complexity of a networked OS hindered the acceptance of PCs to the masses? Would the inherent network abilities have propelled the internet to be bigger and faster, and more connected than ever before?

These are interesting questions, but ultimately technology is cyclical. For example, there's quite a shift at the moment back to the "dumb terminal" model of computing and even things like games are becoming reliant on the client-server model (ie: Steam & HL2).

Re: Rich Steiner (IP: ---.sita.aero)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:46 UTC

Microsoft has indeed been the market winner. It's just too bad that they weren't content to let market forces make the decision for them. Instead, they engaged in a plethora of well-documented activities (some blatantly illegal, others ethically questionable, a few admittedly quite brillant) in order to overcome their competition and dominate the desktop marketplace.

It's worth pointing out the difference between standard business tactics (ie: "market forces") and "monopoly abuse" is nothing more than a largely arbitrary legal judgement - and that you don't actually *know* you're committing "monopoly abuse" until that judgement is made.

RE: Yeah, thanks to Microsoft ...
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:51 UTC

Don't forget: NT, 2000 and XP all are based on OS/2.

Well, at least NT 3.5 was mostly based on OS/2. There are still some lines of code that IBM "owns."

Quote:
"Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0, then known as "NT OS/2". However, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Check your premesis
by Juggz on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:55 UTC

I never understood some of the claims people have against MS. What is so wrong about bundling a browser into one's OS? If I make the software, its MY right to do what I want with it, and if that so includes bundling an internet browser, an office program, etc so be it, ITS MY RIGHT.

In regards to providing "mediocre software at exorbitant prices" that is related to the issue above. Being my software, I can charge any damn price I want for it, even a million if I am so inclined. That does not mean I also have the power to force people to buy it and in fact they probably wouldn't, and I would be bid out of the marketplace. If you don't want MS software, dont buy it, it's that simple. Go buy your own parts from a computer shop and build your own machine. Last time I checked there was no Microsoft guard standing outside of Bestbuy preventing you from doing just that. Regarding the security issue - buying a piece of software is similar to buying others goods in the sense that there is no guarentee that the good will meet your need. You could request the developers/manufacturers to change their product but you have no right to force somebody to make the good as you see fit at the price point that you desire.

Another point I'd like to address is the claim that "MS doesn't let people compete, it doesn't let the market work, it is a monolopy, etc... To this I would have to ask you a question - what is your definition of a free market and of competition? A free market does not in any way guarentee that your company will not be put out of business. In fact, it's quite the opposite, in a long run free market economy the companies that are inefficient will be bid out of the marketplace and the companies that are more efficient will survive. This in turn also lowers the consumer's cost because their dollars are not spent on inefficient products. Your definition of competition seems to exclude just that - competition. The concept of competition relies on the concept of winning. The idea of competition in which there is no clear winner is absurd, and blasts the idea of competition away. If you ever operated a small lemonade stand as a child the same principle is in effect. If you catch wind that your competitor across the street is going to lower his price, you may choose to lower your price even further. I suppose by your reasoning that the other person should say that this is a ruthless and unfair monolopizing practice and run to their mommy (or the government) and complain and try to pass laws to see that you are destroyed. The only way to truly monolopize a market is to ask for government intervention into the market - but that would require a whole seperate topic.

Thank you MS!

For some humor: http://savethehumans.com/stupidity/how_to/microsoft/index.shtml

Re: Chris (IP: ---.student.iastate.edu)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 21:55 UTC

You should thank Intel, and other companies who produced and designed affordable computer parts!

They wouldn't have produced those parts if there wasn't software out there to make them useful.

@Yamin
by Diego on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:00 UTC

"The question is obvious. Why didn't they? Why didn't IBM trounce MS? "

Marketing incompetence.

I really don't buy that "microsoft made possible to have a PC in each home". But Microsoft was put in every home PC out there, that's true


When Microsoft was playing with MSDOS, Apple already had a operative system with a user-friendly GUI.

If "user friendliness" is the reason why Windows succeed, *WHY* people kept buying PCs with MSDOS when Mac's where available with nice GUIs? Perhaps people liked more the MSDOS obscure command line than Mac's user-friendly GUI? I mean, graphic interfaces were available *years* before windows come out...

The right answer is: PCs were cheaper than Macs. That's the only reason. People ignored the user-friendly Apple computers because the equivalent commandline-based PC's were cheaper. Any OS maker that would have put a cheap OS with a nice GUI in the Peecees before Microsoft would have kicked them, and that OS *would* have happened regardless of Microsoft. IBM managers just needed a kick in their butt to realize they could sell OS/2 as a "desktop OS", however they didn't and so Microsoft won the market. I don't really understand why people says we should "thank microsoft". Thanks for what? For being good at marketing?

If anything, I'll thank Intel because their price/performance ratio was great. Cheap enought, fast enought, that was the only reason PCs took the world, and that's the reason they're taking the server world today with the amd opteron, except that the server market is already there and the user one not.

We would have had a PC in every house *even* if Microsoft would have kept developing MSDOS and no OS maker would have launched a "GUI desktop OS" for the general public. I will NEVER thank Microsoft for putting "a PC in every home". It's just not true, hardware price *was* the true key.

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.swiftdsl.com.au)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:00 UTC

If we understand that m$ maked the computers cheaper and easier to use, I still dont know how they did it.

By selling a dirt cheap [D]OS separate from specific hardware, targeted at a largely open platform built from easily available off-the-shelf parts and fostering a _massive_ developer community.

M$ were in the right place with the right contracts at the right time.

Undoubtedly. So was every other company who was the driving force behind an industry.

Today you still cannot purchase a computer without a M$ licence due to their forsight in contract licencing.

Rubbish. It's trivial to purchase PCs without _any_ OS and always has been.

Just because you can't buy one from Dell and Compaq, doesn't mean you can't buy one.

When I spec up servers, more than half the price is software and client access licences.

Entirely possible. Hardly an issue restricted to Microsoft, either.

When i spec up new mid range workstations, half the price is m$ software licences (office, windows, CAL for filesharing and exchange).

You are free not to purchase them.

Added to that, if ~AU$1000 is "half the cost of the machine", it's not a "mid range workstation".

If they wanted to make computers cheaper, they would drop their licence charges (ie tax) and make the most expensive part the hardware.

Computers already _are_ cheap. You are free not to purchase their software if you don't want to.

how insightful
by minghan on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:02 UTC

"Bill Gates had a goal in mind. That goal was to put a Windows based computer on every desktop."

Wow, and all the while i thought he was just trying to squeeze as much money outta everyone as he possibly can! How wrong am I.

thanks for monopolizing the whole world and picking up virus to
by spaceboy29 on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:03 UTC

Thanks Monopoly....Bill you should be on the Monopoly Board game box..I still hate Dos...hated it from day one.......

Well
by Tyr on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:15 UTC

Microsoft arguably did do a great job, but in the end wouldn't every company they ruthlessly crushed have done so also ?

Not just Amiga and OS/2, but even before that Gem and Geos which were more advanced than Ms offerings of the time. Ms really did very little innovating, they make good, but not great, products that really just take an existing concept and run with it (the windowing os, the office suite, application scripting, etc) Not to mention that the biggest killer app of the last 2 decades - the internet - would have happened regardless since it originated on Unix.

All in all they made a decent job of it, but I prefer people who don't walk over dead bodies to make a buck.

Opinion: Thanks, Microsoft
by Michael Wassil on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:16 UTC

Thanks? Not from me. Bill Gates and Microsoft got where they are today with a pint of good marketing and bushel of good luck. Plus a lot of stuff that got them convicted as felons.

http://steve-parker.org/articles/microsoft/

v Microsoft IS evil
by SafetyO on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:16 UTC
Thanks Microsoft
by Lumbergh on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:18 UTC

for finally putting out a stable consumer OS (XP), .NET, and good dev tools.

No thanks for giving us the clusterfuck that is win32 api and MFC.

I'll remain neutral on IE since it quickly blew away the piece of shit that is Netscape, but then stagnated for whatever reason.

Thanks for what?
by AZ on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:24 UTC

An interesting point of view, even more readable with the paragraphs ;)
Perhaps its false to assume, but reading your article I get the impression that you started using computers with Windows. Thats OK, but one can and should not "judge" Windows without any "historical" knowledge about the computer industry. Looking back I cant see anything we should MS be thankful for. IMHO they where just at the right place at the right time - selling "their" DOS to IBM. If we have to thank someone in the computer industry its either IBM or Intel for the PC Platform, perhaps even AMD/Cyrix for competition in the CPU market.
Bill Gates, as a business man, had one vision only: to sell his product and make money. Lots of it. And sometimes with methods not only morally questionable but straight illegal. Lets not forget that MS has violated several laws and - as a company - is a convicted criminal. But thats only one aspect why people just love to hate M$. ;) AZ

@ drsmithy
by Tyr on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:25 UTC

It's worth pointing out the difference between standard business tactics (ie: "market forces") and "monopoly abuse" is nothing more than a largely arbitrary legal judgement - and that you don't actually *know* you're committing "monopoly abuse" until that judgement is made.

Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" ? Some of the things Ms pulled were just so dirty I seriously don't believe even they could have been ignorant of the illegality/immorality. Then again who can understand MBA's these days, they'd probably sell their mothers into slavery if it would make their stock go up.

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.wan.networktel.net)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:34 UTC

Don't forget: NT, 2000 and XP all are based on OS/2.

Well, at least NT 3.5 was mostly based on OS/2.


Assuming you mean the OS/2 most people know as OS/2 2.x, and later Warp, false. OS/2 and NT have _nothing_ architecturally in common. They are separate codebases.

There are still some lines of code that IBM "owns."

There's a hell of lot more code Microsoft owns in OS/2 than there is code IBM owns in NT. Indeed, I'm not I've heard about _any_ IBM code in NT.

"Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0, then known as "NT OS/2". However, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM."

Correct information, but used out of context. OS/2 2.x and (then) "OS/2 NT" (later renamed to Windows NT after the surprise success of Windows 3.0) are completely different OSes. Certainly, the OS that became Windows NT was originally destined to be OS/2 3.0, but it was a from-scratch project run solely by Microsoft (with ex-Digital employees Dave Cutler & Co.).

NT is _not_ a derivative of the OS/2 everyone knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

You should know better than to rely on Wikipedia as a primary source. Indeed, whoever has written that Wikipedia article has made some poor logical deductions:

"Windows NT's OS/2 heritage can be seen in its initial support for the HPFS filesystem (although write support was dropped in Windows NT 4.0 and read support was dropped in Windows 2000) and text mode OS/2 1.x applications (support dropped in Windows XP)."

This is a like saying you can "see FreeBSD's Linux heritage" because it supports EXT2 and can run Linux binaries.

@drsmithy
by Chris on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:35 UTC

"They wouldn't have produced those parts if there wasn't software out there to make them useful."
Thanks for showing us you've never read a history book.
Intel developed the 4004 while Bill Gates was....well not running Microsoft yet.

This reminds me of a joke i once read...
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:40 UTC

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the motorway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask: "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.wan.networktel.net)
by Mezzanine on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:42 UTC

if anything windows nt (kernel) is based on vms: http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=4494

Re: Diego (IP: 80.103.2.---)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:46 UTC

If anything, I'll thank Intel because their price/performance ratio was great. Cheap enought, fast enought, that was the only reason PCs took the world, and that's the reason they're taking the server world today with the amd opteron, except that the server market is already there and the user one not.

Except back in the day Intel's price/performance wasn't particular good. You'd be more correct in thanking IBM for using off the shelf parts.

We would have had a PC in every house *even* if Microsoft would have kept developing MSDOS and no OS maker would have launched a "GUI desktop OS" for the general public. I will NEVER thank Microsoft for putting "a PC in every home". It's just not true, hardware price *was* the true key.

Seems a bit churlish not to give kudos to Microsoft just because some other company would have done the same thing at the same time. I mean, by that line of reasoning you'd never give the appropriate kudos to _anyone_ "because someone else would have done the same thing". The main reason hardware became so cheap was the easy availability of an OS from someone other than the hardware vendor. While that idea wasn't entirely revolutionary at the time, it _was_ a fairly uncommon practice.

Nonsense
by retyup on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:46 UTC

A lot of the desktop versions of GNU/Linux we use today are Microsoft look-a-likes and function similarly to Windows.

What a load of fluff. Microsoft (Win95) was not the first OS to have a taskbar, so calling all other OS'es that use a taskbar / desktop layout a Microsoft look-a-like is not fair.

How about we refer to them all as RISC OS/Arthur look-a-likes?

/waits for someone to tell me that RISC OS/Arthur wasn't the first.

thanks
by omnivector on Wed 15th Dec 2004 22:55 UTC

yeah.. thanks microsoft. thanks for single handly stagnating the industry

thanks for making my life harder

thanks for making my friend's live's harder

thanks for writing crappy softawre and forcing it on the general public with your monopoly

and last of all, thanks for keeping me employed thanks to your terrible software

Re: Tyr (IP: ---.kabel.telenet.be)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:00 UTC

Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" ?

I have, and I think it's a load of crap spewed forth by people who a) want to feel superior at not getting caught or b) want to be able to lock up anyone they want at a whim.

However, the point wasn't "ignorance of the law", the point was that perfectly normal, common and lawful business practices like product integration and sole-supplier contracts can be very suddenly illegal one day (ie: the day after you get ruled a monopoly). Actually it's even worse than that because it goes back to the day you were *accused* of being a monopoly.

I should probably make it extra clear here that my gripe here is not with laws against monopoly abuse, it's in the way they are defined and applied. It's quite possible to be "abusing monopoly powers" without actually knowing you're a monopoly (since that state can only be ruled by a court).

Added to that I don't agree Microsoft was ever a monopoly. There are, and always have been, alternatives available of equivalent - if not superior - functionality.

Some of the things Ms pulled were just so dirty I seriously don't believe even they could have been ignorant of the illegality/immorality.

For example ?

As an aside, the "immoral" argument is meaningless. [For-profit] Businesses are inherently immoral (or, at best, amoral).

Then again who can understand MBA's these days, they'd probably sell their mothers into slavery if it would make their stock go up.

That's hardly a recent phenomenon.

RE: drsmithy
by Yamin on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:03 UTC

Exactly,

MS treated home computing seriously when others did not. MS chose to be cheaper and better supported. Both conscious decisions that turned out to have a huge payout. That is what MS did right and I think is the point of the article. MS chose right, other chose wrong. MS led the way to the desktop home PC. Others did not. Others *COULD* have, but they didn't. Linux wasn't even started before 1991...it missed the first voyage of the home PC so to speak...MS was a busy bee back in the 80s. Other's priced themselves too high, didn't make the right deals, didn't put in the investment needed...

People can view it as 'what IBM/MAC did wrong' or 'what MS did right'. In either case, MS did end up leading the way.

It's like athletes in a race. If one runner who people expect to win makes a bad decision and stays out late the night before, and some upcomer wins the race, you have to give the upcomer the credit he is due for not making the wrong decision and being good enough to beat the rest of the pack.

On a side note:
Yeop, the network model is now coming back as the infrastructure is here for everyone. I guess we get to see if MS misses this boat with bad decisions or not. <twiddling thumbs waiting for longhorn and praying they fix windows networking>.

lol what ... ?
by Sťrgio Machado on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:03 UTC

[QUote=Darius] (IP: ---.dmotorworks.com) - Posted on 2004-12-15 19:46:37

If it weren't for them, we'd all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.[/Quote]

Hey, OS/2 at the time was 10000000000000000 times more powerfull then Windows ...

Jesus Christ ... what we hear this days is funny ...

If you want to talk about something, be carefull with what you say ...

Windows just have markting and money, inovation = 0 !

Re: Chris (IP: ---.student.iastate.edu)
by drsmithy on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:08 UTC

Intel developed the 4004 while Bill Gates was....well not running Microsoft yet.

It was a long, long, *long* way from the first microprocessor to economically feasible personal computers.

Thanks to microsoft? think twice
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:25 UTC

Imagine that Linux would grow up eventually, there might not be that many companies wanted to compete with microsoft for server. But if there is no windows, what do you think the home users will use? I don't have an answer, but in my opinion, hardware and software development will not go so quickly; but is this a bad thing? Software development might be slow down comparing to now but open source community would have been much larger, the good thing is that all kinds of software would be more concrete because proprietary software uses open source as the base like Mozilla or Netbean, which has a huge community to find out the bugs for the commercial products. Games would have been developed for Linux or other platforms, the market may be even bigger because Linux is free, so games makers would have more customers than now.

It's just my imagination, it might be wrong, but I don't really appreciate Microsoft, who is really a trouble maker.

RE: The day MS won the world
by phoenix on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:26 UTC

[quote]I'm not even sure Microsoft had to create Windows to "beat" Apple. People would probably be fine with the strictly single-tasking MS-DOS, using fine products such as WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. It was, however, fortunate for MS that they had taken the step up to a graphical shell when they had to compete with IBM's OS/2 and others later on.[/quote]

OS/2 versions up to and including 2.x were written by Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM wrote OS/2 as the successor for DOS. It wasn't until the GUI versions of OS/2 were being developed and IBM started dragging their feet that MS started developing Windows.

OS/2 Warp was the first version completely developed by IBM.

MS thought OS/2 was going to be the future, and the OS/2 Workplace shell was going to be the default GUI for Windows NT. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 took off that they added the Windows GUI to Windows NT. (You can actually run OS/2 binaries on Windows NT 3.x and 4.x; the OS/2 subsystem was removed from Win2K.)

IOW, they didn't have to compete with OS/2, as they were the ones who built it. ;) Once the GUI wars began, though, things changed. Too bad the 16-bit graphical shell called Windows seemed to appeal to the most people. ;)

go away m$
by Robocoastie on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:32 UTC

uh, m$ didn't have that much to do with it they weren't they only ones who had an o/s. IBM had their version of DOS, there was DR.DOS, Apple had there's and for the longest time Apple ruled the desktop in school, print, and home (some say it still does). The pc history has a myriad of contributors. The only difference between the early days of it and now, is that in the beginning the USERS pushed the industry foreward which led to hardware increasing in capacity, speed etc... but now M$ tells US what we should have. (DRM, cpu locked drm schemes, still using stupid carpel tunnel causing mice instead of voice or vector based intuitive UI's...add on to this the list could go on).

back about 12 years ago
by jj on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:37 UTC

I wrote the software that ran a company that had 100's of millions of dollars exchanged. Let's see - we ran mostly on 386's. Ya we used ms-dos - thanks microsoft - but I had to use the dos extender 386max till ms-dos 5 came out - no microsoft there. The primary software was written in rbase - no microsoft there (microrim still sells a dos version). Our spreadsheets were 123r3.1 - no microsoft there. Our documents were Wordperfect - no microsoft there. Our network was a mix of 10net and Novell - Nope no microsoft there. I used pctools for maintenance - no microsoft there. In fact - the first company that I worked with that immersed itself in microsoft was in 1997. Nothing but ms since. I think giving away their operating system with new systems is not really a pc revolution - nor is it something to thank microsoft for.

RE: Thanks Microsoft
by Tobias on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:38 UTC

"I'll remain neutral on IE since it quickly blew away the piece of shit that is Netscape, but then stagnated for whatever reason."

Newsflash. Not only is IE a piece of shit, but it's not even MS's piece of shit. They had to buy it first from Spyglass and then ensure it remained a piece of shit. This from the biggest software company in the world. Not very impressive.

RE:
by Carl on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:40 UTC

Not all companies which are in a dominant position were also convicted (not just accused) of federal anti-trust violations in the process of getting there.

Microsoft has indeed been the market winner. It's just too bad that they weren't content to let market forces make the decision for them. Instead, they engaged in a plethora of well-documented activities (some blatantly illegal, others ethically questionable, a few admittedly quite brillant) in order to overcome their competition and dominate the desktop marketplace.

It's sad that we'll never know what might have happened if other companies would have been able to offer their products to the public and have them judged based on their merits. I suspect the desktop computing world would be a somewhat more secure and functional world today...
"QUOTE"

There have been plenty of monopolies and there still are, all businesses eventually merge to stay alive, and then before you know it they have to be broken up, it happened before to the Bell phone companies and look what happened, they are merging all over again.

Apple messed up, Unix messed up, in fact pretty much all computer manufacturers at the time could not let go of the hardware/software bond. Microsoft did it first and succeeded. Of course they did unfair business practices along the way but Intel tried doing it to overseas markets to beat down AMD, and it is something that is always going to happen.

It's called "business"

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.swiftdsl.com.au)
by Tobias on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:42 UTC

"Today you still cannot purchase a computer without a M$ licence due to their forsight in contract licencing.

Rubbish. It's trivial to purchase PCs without _any_ OS and always has been. "

Why after all this time can't I walk into a Fry's or Best Buy and buy a whitebox? Why I can't get a discount if I ask them to take Windows off before selling it to me? How long will it be before we're allowed to have choices in a retail store?

drsmithy:
by AdamW on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:52 UTC

eh? Commodore committed suicide, yes. Microsoft killed OS/2, though. It's well documented. They were supposed to co-develop and promote it as the One True Operating system - instead they put some half-hearted effort into one version then bogged off and designed Win95 instead.

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.swiftdsl.com.au)
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:52 UTC

Why after all this time can't I walk into a Fry's or Best Buy and buy a whitebox? Why I can't get a discount if I ask them to take Windows off before selling it to me? How long will it be before we're allowed to have choices in a retail store?

Why do you feel that you should dictate how Fry's sells computers to people? Why are you entitled to tell companies how much they should charge? Why don't you buy from somewhere else or start your own company?

@yamin:
by AdamW on Wed 15th Dec 2004 23:59 UTC

'MS treated home computing seriously when others did not."

Eh? What? Commodore, Amiga, Sinclair, Atari, any bells ringing here yet? Microsoft were more unusual in the idea that there should be a *fat* desktop on the desk of every *business* user. The other home players didn't work very well with enterprises, and the enterprise competitors all pushed the old mainframe / thin client model.

Re: Tobias (IP: ---.dialup.mindspring.com)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:02 UTC

Why after all this time can't I walk into a Fry's or Best Buy and buy a whitebox?

Because they don't sell them ?

Why I can't get a discount if I ask them to take Windows off before selling it to me?

Same reason Apple won't let me buy a PowerMac without OS X.

How long will it be before we're allowed to have choices in a retail store?

You're "allowed" choices now. The problem you have is that pandering to those choices is not economical to places like Walmart and hence, the domain of smaller suppliers.

You are complaining because you can't buy fringe products at mainstream shops. Well, you may find this amazing, but that's a situation you'll bump into with just about _everything_.

Re: phoenix (IP: ---.net.gov.bc.ca)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:03 UTC

Just a couple of minor nitpicks...

OS/2 versions up to and including 2.x were written by Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM wrote OS/2 as the successor for DOS. It wasn't until the GUI versions of OS/2 were being developed and IBM started dragging their feet that MS started developing Windows.

Windows development started long before that. Remember, Windows 1.0 came out in 1985, a couple of years before the first graphical shell for OS/2.

OS/2 Warp was the first version completely developed by IBM.

Wrap was just the continued development of OS/2 2.x. It wasn't a new OS. IBM were paying licensing fees to Microsoft for OS/2 code well into the late '90s.

It wasn't until Windows 3.1 took off that they added the Windows GUI to Windows NT. (You can actually run OS/2 binaries on Windows NT 3.x and 4.x; the OS/2 subsystem was removed from Win2K.)

It was actually Windows *3.0* that started the Windows dominance. Certainly 3.1 was a significant improvement, but 3.0 was the version that changed Microsoft's new OS from OS/2 NT to Windows NT.

Also, I think you'll find the OS/2 subsystem was still in Windows 2000, it was Windows XP that finally removed it.

IOW, they didn't have to compete with OS/2, as they were the ones who built it. ;) Once the GUI wars began, though, things changed. Too bad the 16-bit graphical shell called Windows seemed to appeal to the most people. ;)

Very true. OS/2 was great, back in the day. I was a happy OS/2 user right up until NT4 hit late beta.

Re: Robocoastie (IP: ---.neb.rr.com)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:05 UTC

uh, m$ didn't have that much to do with it they weren't they only ones who had an o/s. IBM had their version of DOS, there was DR.DOS, [...]

IBM PC DOS was just a slightly modified, licensed version of MS DOS. DR DOS was, IIRC, quite a bit more expensive in the early days.

[...] Apple had there's and for the longest time Apple ruled the desktop in school, print, and home (some say it still does).

Apple were way too expensive for the home market. They never even came close to "ruling" it.

The only difference between the early days of it and now, is that in the beginning the USERS pushed the industry foreward which led to hardware increasing in capacity, speed etc... but now M$ tells US what we should have. (DRM, cpu locked drm schemes, still using stupid carpel tunnel causing mice instead of voice or vector based intuitive UI's...add on to this the list could go on).

Rubbish. Users still drive the platform, often to its detriment. If Microsoft were driving the platform we would have been rid of things like ISA, PS/2, parallel ports, Win16 and DOS 5 - 10 years ago.

Voice control is not practical. Even ignoring the poor accuracy rates of voice recognition software, there's no sufficiently advanced AI system to actually interpret what the user means based on what they actually say. Then there's the issue of an office full of people talking to their computers. None of these can be even remotely blamed on Microsoft.

Re: AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.---)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:20 UTC

eh? Commodore committed suicide, yes. Microsoft killed OS/2, though. It's well documented.

Sounds like you weren't actually a user. Trying to get any sort of commitment about OS/2 from IBM was like drawing blood from a stone. Not to mention their poor attitudes towards developers.

IBM's approach to OS/2 was often called "anti-marketing" by the OS/2 community and it fitted to a T. OS/2 was always IBM's red-headed stepchild - they never really figured out what to do with it.

They were supposed to co-develop and promote it as the One True Operating system - instead they put some half-hearted effort into one version then bogged off and designed Win95 instead.

Actually they put a great deal of effort into several versions of OS/2 - from 1.0 through to a fair chunk of 2.0 (and what was to become Windows NT).

The famous IBM-Microsoft split happened way back in 1991 (3 years _after_ the beginning of the NT project), because of the (freakish, all things considered) success of Windows 3.0. Microsoft went on to put quite a bit of work into Windows 3.1 and 3.11 before moving on to Windows 95.

You can hardly blame Microsoft for shifting focus to Windows 3.x when that was the product their customers were clamouring for. Why would they waste resources on a product neither their developers nor customer based was demanding ?

Where did my comments go
by Anand on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:39 UTC

WHERE did my comments go Eugenia. Even the author has admitted to this mistake. What do you expect us to do write "Please" "Thank You" blabla when the article is badly formatted.

yeah, thanks a bunch
by linus on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:42 UTC

I'm too tired to read all the comments, so please excuse me if someone has already said what I'm saying.

1. Yeah, thanks, thanks a lot for the hours/days/months of my life spent cleaning up computers belonging to people who don't know that using IE/Outlook/OE/MSN etc. rapidly fills their box chock full of spyware, viruses, malware and every other piece of crap sw someone wants to push down their throats (ie thanks to the genius who thought up ActiveX).

2. Thanks for DOS for showing me my first CLI (my first computer was an Atari 1040STFM).

3. Thanks for Windows 95, the system so lousy you had no choice *but* to learn how things worked.

4. Thanks for XPSP2, the first effort to actually make Windows user-friendly, and actually, for the first time, decrease the time I spend with (1).

5. Thanks for giving me a platform to surf the web from so I could discover, and switch to, Linux.

6. Thanks for the inability to create a decent web-browser so the rest of us could have mozilla/firefox and opera.

7. Thanks for letting Ad-Aware and SAV *finally* complete their scans with 0 hits, so I can disconnect and go to bed. Oh wait a sec, can't really thank them for that, can I?

P.S. I actually think that everyone should probably thank IBM, they're the ones that really did it, without them there would be no Microsoft, and Intel would've been a lot smaller too. AMD? don't think so. Come to think of it, would my name-sake have started coding on an Amiga or Atari if there had been no IBM-PC? Who knows? I sure as ???? don't. D.S.

@Adam W
by MoronPeeCeeUSR on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:42 UTC

Why after all this time can't I walk into a Fry's or Best Buy and buy a whitebox? Why I can't get a discount if I ask them to take Windows off before selling it to me? How long will it be before we're allowed to have choices in a retail store?

Well obviously frys dosen't consider the niche you represent to be profitable enough to bother offering what you want.

Try a small mom and pop computer shop. Basic no OS whitebox systems are available all over the place. Its just not a mainstream market for the stuff because *gasp* most people who buy a computer want an OS with it and *gasp* they probably want that computer with Windows.

For whatever reason Windows is the biggest OS out there. If you can't handle htat start your own company and get busy. Its a free country (in the USA anyway)

re: drsmithy
by JK on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:52 UTC

"The main reason hardware became so cheap was the easy availability of an OS from someone other than the hardware vendor. While that idea wasn't entirely revolutionary at the time, it _was_ a fairly uncommon practice."

What about CP/M? That was an industry standard before MS-DOS, it was available for various computers using a number of different CPUs. I used it at home on my Sirius 1 (8088 based but not IBM compatible) and later at work on a Z80 equipped BBC Micro. It was also used on the Osbourne 1 (the first portable computer) and many others. There was a large library of software available, including industry standard apps such as Wordstar and Visicalc.

If IBM had bought an operating system from any small software company, they'd have probably become the equivalent of Microsoft. Microsoft's success is mainly due to that lucky event, not the quality of their software. It took Microsoft over 10 years to create a copy of Mac OS that approached it's usability. Much smaller companies created much better GUIs in far less time. Just compare GEM from 1985 (http://toastytech.com/guis/gem11.html) with any version of Windows released that decade.

Overall I find it very hard to think of any reason to say thanks to Microsoft.

MS did what?
by AussieGuy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 00:54 UTC

I have been involved in the computer industry for 23 years now and I can tell you that MS did not revolutionize anything, they copied lots and marketed better. The main reason for the rise of the PC in the 80's was very simple, VisiCalc and other spreadsheet applications, and Word Star, Word Perfect and the multitude of other word processors. These 2 types of application made the PC the tool that it is today, I would hazard a guess that 80% of all PC's still use some form Word Processing and Spreadsheet (most probably Excel and Word) as their primary function with Internet productivity tools mail and browser next.

MS really didn't have a foot hold on anything until it had Word 2.0 a product it acquired, then Windows for Work Groups was when it all went MS's way. I don't begrudge MS for creating such a market share but to infer that MS made the PC market what it is today is just plain FUD, PC's would be just a wide spread today with or without MS.

@drsmithy
by Chris on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:01 UTC

Way to change the argument. The argument is who came first, the hardware or the software; and the hardware came first.
Always has (see: x86-64, a year later and no stable Win64), and it always will.
You can't, afterall, write software (completely) for a non-existant system.

computing world owns to alot more companies
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:05 UTC

Many of these companies might not exist any more, but they are the one that made it possible.

Just to name a few ;)

Let us not forget, some of these software companies

Havard Graphics (visual slides), Lotus 123 (spreadsheet), Ami-Pro (word process), dBase (database), Ventura Publisher / Page Maker (Desktop Publishing), Borland (programming), Novel (networking), Stacker (compression).

Let us not forget, some of these hardware companies

Number Nine Imagine (2D video), 3Dfx Voodoo (3D video), NEC (CGA, EGA, VGA, multi-sync display), Canon (Bubble printer), Tutle Beach (Sound Card), Sony (*CDU-31A* CD-ROM), Xircom /DEC (Tulip) (NIC), US Robotics (modem).






give me a break
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:05 UTC

if Appolo hadn't made it to the moon we would never have gone?

right.

the desktop computer was as anavoidable as the mobile phone or fridge, no matter what os it runs

this is not worth a read

computing world owns to alot more companies
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:07 UTC

Sorry miss out 1 important company


Netscape (Browser)

Opps did some one mentioned another one
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:12 UTC

386max (memory enhancer)

RE: and what?
by justyn on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:19 UTC

Well, concerning the browser issue, I still used Netscape 4.5 until IE.5. came out. Now I use Opera instead. Its not because they bundled the software that forces me to use it, its about knowledge.

As we grow as a society with knowledge around us, Microsoft will have to find new ways to convince us to stay with them. All it takes is alot of money and tolerance for a collective to migrate to a new solution.

Another one?
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:21 UTC

Oh yes

PCtools / Nortol Uilities (System Ware)



RE: Opinion: Thanks, Microsoft
by user_x on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:21 UTC

I started with a Mac in 1986 & today I run GNU/Linux -- like many I got a computer because it was time, not because bilygee got me.

Am I thankful for the degradation of usenet, the proliferation ofmalicious scripts, the ubiquitous absurdly poor security policies of sysadmins running windoze servers, & the exploding population of illiterate netizens?

Well no, frankly.
YMMV.

user_x

Seems like there is more than meets the eye
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:23 UTC

Lotus Notes (Groupware)

Re: Chris (IP: ---.student.iastate.edu)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:25 UTC

Way to change the argument. The argument is who came first, the hardware or the software; and the hardware came first.

Uh, no, the argument was what allowed the PC to become reality.

The point is it was a symbiotic relationship - the software was just as important as the hardware.

You can't, afterall, write software (completely) for a non-existant system.

Sure you can, with emulators.

Here is another
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:26 UTC

Winamp (MP3 software player)

Oh Another
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:29 UTC

ICQ (Instant Messaging)

Re: JK (IP: ---.access.uk.tiscali.com)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:39 UTC

What about CP/M? That was an industry standard before MS-DOS, it was available for various computers using a number of different CPUs.

Sorry, I should have specified "cheap" as well. CP/M was, by my understanding, relatively expensive.

If IBM had bought an operating system from any small software company, they'd have probably become the equivalent of Microsoft.

I don't believe anyone is disputing that.

Overall I find it very hard to think of any reason to say thanks to Microsoft.

Because they _were_ that company. Same reason you thank Apple because they were lucky enough to come up with the "first" GUI.

@Chris (IP: ---.student.iastate.edu)
by Lumbergh on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:41 UTC

You can't, afterall, write software (completely) for a non-existant system.

Wrong, they've been writing software for non-existant for decades using hardware simulators.

Thanks
by Julian on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:52 UTC

Thanks Microsoft, now your part is over. You may now go and leave us alone, for everyone's sake. We can make computing more convenient, and you have time to spent all the money you gained in the past.

RE: computing world owns to alot more companies
by Greg on Thu 16th Dec 2004 01:53 UTC

Uh, maybe Hayes should be mentioned for modem.

>Canon (Bubble printer), Tutle Beach (Sound Card), Sony >(*CDU-31A* CD-ROM), Xircom /DEC (Tulip) (NIC), US Robotics >(modem).

Yet another
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:00 UTC

Here is another one
Java (Vitual Machine)?

[Quote]
... if not for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Microsoft. Would it be a dry, barren, lifeless, wasteland, or would the fruits of the labor of GNU/Linux, Apple or even IBM have blossomed into a computing system we could never imagine. The world will never know.[Quote]

I think the world now knows, the fruits of labour are build on top of many companies'/people (not particular Microsoft) sweat and blood.

RE: by Greg
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:06 UTC

[Quote]
Uh, maybe Hayes should be mentioned for modem.
[Quote]

Agree!

Any additional contribution?

MS did not bring PCs to the masses.
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:10 UTC

Commodore brought affordable PCs long before MS, remeber their moto "Computers for the masses not the classes"

Commodore produced and supported the C64 for close to 10 years. Apple was concered about FORWARD compabilty as well giving support for earily Macs for years. Now ask your self is your 1995 Wintel still supported? Of course not, as MS stratgy always been having short life span making Windows more like a drug. What Intel giveth MS takes away, yes linux can be slugish too but you can fine tune it to be just as responsive on older systems as say QNX.

MS made computing not fun as people brag about their kick ass system that most of its resources goes to supporting MS sloppy code. MS abandoned the model game systems still use of efficent use of resources and long shelf life for a never ending treadmill.

v Joke
by pit on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:12 UTC
Re: Dreamer (IP: ---.jf.intel.com)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:18 UTC

Any additional contribution?

Matrox (multihead video cards).

Viscalc (the first spreadsheet).

Compaq (reverse engineered the PC BIOS, allowing cloning).

Ooooh, what a childish article (opinion)
by Penetrator on Thu 16th Dec 2004 02:22 UTC

I've been laughing while I read all this article. Has it been written by Bill Gates himself?. I'm sure this kind of confusion can only come from an evangelized Microsoft employee.

I think this article (opinion) wants to say: "Hey, you're using a computer to submit that comment right now because microsoft allowed you to have a PC".

Industry and market circumstances carried Microsoft to the top of PC software vendors. It was the result of a good marketing strategy and a lucky future vision too, but not the quality of its products, specially windows. However, Office is a good piece of software, I must recognize it.

But Microsoft Corp. has been plentifully rewarded by that. It's one of the biggest and richest corporations all over the world, his CEOs too. Well, that's bussiness. But, do you really think we must thank Microsoft because of that? just because a corp. wants to earn millions? You must be insane.

Don't worry, if Microsoft would have disappeared, another corps. would have taken its place. PCs expansion was not a Microsoft/not Microsoft chance, it was just bussiness, and microsoft was able, and had the ability to enter into the market and dominate it. I will say it again, THAT'S BUSSINESS. If your government would have provided you with a free PC, you could thank it, but Microsoft hasn't given you anything, just a buggy and limited piece of software that you pay (it's very expensive).

I think we must thank Apple because they invented the PCs. And in the same way, we must thank IBM because they invented the notebooks (it was Toshiba, but who cares, IBM notebooks are better). And, finally, we must thank linus torvalds because he has invented the "cold fusion" (hey, it hasn't been invented yet....mmmm well, I think that when the cold fusion is invented, it will be invented by Linus Torvalds, if not, who?)

Re: thanks by Omnivector
by anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:05 UTC

You thank MS for making your life harder. Yet I viewed you website and all I saw was software written for MS Windows
If you really hate MS why do you continue to support software for it. Start writing Software for linux or Mac or some other platform. Action speaks louder than words.

No thanks
by Anthony Borton on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:17 UTC

This is a very poorly written article, and it burns my eyes when I read it. No more crap like this please.

What
by Anand on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:20 UTC

"Action speaks louder than words." But you have bills to pay at the end of the month and food to eat. Writing software for linux, till the time it is not mainstream is out of question.

Re: What Anand
by anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:28 UTC

So find another line of work. It's OK for you to make money off of MS but if MS wants to make money it's not. Am I getting this right. Why and how do work a job you have no respect for? You must be a DRONE!!!

NO thanks from me.
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:30 UTC

So putting a PC on every single desktop is such a world-saving feat right?
Just manufacting a single PC consumes a LOT of energy - a LOT of water and a LOT of prime materials to produce.
And thanks to Billy he made those into disposable comodoties - littering the enviroment.

Billy did make sure people had to keep upgrading their PC every 3 years or so - dumping their old machine into skips.
How many companies openly destroyed thousands of PCs because they were made obsolete "thanks" to Microsoft?

"Thanks" to Billy. Children as young as 8 are exposed to pornography. Are in threat of being stalked by paedophiles. Are reading incest stories in the internet. Nice huh?

"Thanks" to Billy. We lived through a false economy. People invested on MS technologies in the 90s only to find out these tools were constantly made obsolete in a vicious mad cycle of compulsory upgrades (software and hardware).

"Thanks" to Billy. Millions can't find a job in IT - anymore ... their houses being taken away because they can't keep with the morgage. How many millions in America and the UK were made redudants in the "Microsoft" IT sector? They invested more money in Billy than they've gained.

"Thanks" to Billy. We've been having an under par atrocious operating system. That causes more problems than it solves. Microsoft being so extremely easy to hack. We have credit card stolen, people's lives stolen - their curriculum easily uploaded.

"Thanks" to Billy. Billions of computers are now "zombies" - helping spread further pornography, scams and viagra. Again it is your child that opens up the inbox and see those images.

Had there been no mad acceleration in putting disposable PCs everywhere.
Would I be a sadder or unhealthier person?
Would you?

I bet we would regard computers with more respect and awe (like in the 80s) than utter disgust and disdain.

All thanks to Billy.

In fact I wished the guy was never born.

v @Penetrator
by Lumbergh on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:32 UTC
@The Mesmeric
by Lumbergh on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:34 UTC

I recommend doubling your dose of meds and seeking professional psychiatric help immediately.

Re: No thanks from me
by anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:34 UTC

I hate Henry ford for the car it's Killed millions in car accidents. I blame the Wright brothers for 9/11 they must have been terriorst. Bastards. Get the point Mesmerick

Re:†little correction
by helf on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:37 UTC

oh man! THANK you for mentioning this. I *hate* it when people say the first. but I gotta correct even you. The first electronic computer was the Atanasoff-Berry Computer AKA ABC computer. Heres a short article on it.. http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml

slightly predates the z3.. but zuse was a genius ;)

Mistakes
by jp on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:37 UTC

We are here because of the mistake and good points of certain companies. IBM: Big mistake thinking that hardware was more important than software. Licensing was the mayor thing for Microsoft becomming what it is. Xerox: Big mistake not using their own graphical interface. Apple took advantage of this. Apple: Big mistake letting Bill Gates write code for them. They got robbed and didnt know what to do.

@anon - it is you that don't get my point
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:42 UTC

aeroplanes are very secure - state of the art things.
the same can be said about many cars

personal computers because of the mad cycle of compulsory upgrade is one comodity that loses value - VERY fast.

Henry Ford was a visionary that helped many work practices - did you know that? You should never bend for a machine but the other way round.

And again Billy didn't do anything - he is a marketeer. The OS was not his - he can't even program.

Whereas the Wright Brothers inventing the plane - most likely - there is a debate. But one of the inventors Santos Dumont - killed himself when he saw planes being used in warfare.

Those inventors had consciousness.

Billy has worms for brain.

v @Lumbergh
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:44 UTC
v @mesmeric
by Lumbergh on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:46 UTC
v @Lumbergh
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:50 UTC
drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:50 UTC

Yes, seems you have a fair point on OS/2 from the reading up I've been doing - obviously my memory of the time was hazy ;) . Thanks for that.

@Mesmeric
by youknowmewell on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:55 UTC

I'm sure that an argument could be made that if cars and airplanes were to cost the same as a decent computer today, people would likely upgrade more often as well.

Your logic seems to be flawed. The connection between pollution and Bill Gates is weak at best, and sounds rather foolish to boot.

Bill Gates is not the source of the worlds computer problems, so get over it.

One other thing, Bill Gates can code. Here is some reading to be done on Bill Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

dreamer:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:57 UTC

"Number Nine Imagine (2D video), 3Dfx Voodoo (3D video), NEC (CGA, EGA, VGA, multi-sync display), Canon (Bubble printer), Tutle Beach (Sound Card), Sony (*CDU-31A* CD-ROM), Xircom /DEC (Tulip) (NIC), US Robotics (modem)."

Well, you're testing memories here, but I believe S3 were doing accelerated 2D before 9, 3DFX were just called that (Voodoo was the name of a product), Roland were doing sound cards before Turtle Beach and CD-ROM drives came out from several manufacturers at much the same time, they were an industry-wide kind of development, NCSA developed the first web browser (Mosaic) and I think QEMM was around for memory management before 386Max. They weren't what you'd call revolutionary anyway, just ugly hacks for inherent limitations of DOS.

drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 03:59 UTC

CP/M wasn't particularly expensive, no. Several fairly cheap 'home' computers ran it. I think the prize in this thread so far goes to the guy who mentioned Visicalc - that was the original killer app. Thousands of businesses bought PCs solely to run Visicalc on. Visicalc and Wordperfect...

v @Meserick
by anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:00 UTC
@Lumbergh
by Chris on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:05 UTC

"'You can't, afterall, write software (completely) for a non-existant system.'

Wrong, they've been writing software for non-existant for decades using hardware simulators. "
No, you can't, because you can't debug. Did ya notice the "completely" part ;) . And once again, way to take the argument out of context ;) .

@youknowmewell
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:06 UTC

err you are giving me a link of a "wikipedia"
written by the public? lol

Read the entire story of Microsoft from the very start than come back. I mean you are at least aware he never wrote DOS write?

Also never have I said the world pollution is simply caused by the disposable PCs .. although it is just another contributor.

I've seen it. A company dumping brand new machines into a skip. I've seen how Microsoft software are purposely made obsolete. Even versions of Word won't open. It is a game to make more and more money - for pure greed sake.

People don't hate Billy because they are jealous of his success. There is a reason, a whole history to it - of greed, deception, and very dirty tricks.

There are many other succesfull extremely rich people that are seen in a positive light. George Soros for example.

My point being - the world would be a better place had Billy never existed.

And so I don't have anything to thank him for.

(Some people and their naivity .. geeze ...)

drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:06 UTC

Oh, and to follow on from the price point, the original PCs weren't cheap machines at all, they cost in the thousands of dollars range. They weren't home machines - as has already been remarked, the home market was the province of a bunch of smaller companies like Sinclair, Altair, Commodore, Acorn, Amstrad and so forth that have mostly folded since. They sold very small weedy computers in the hundreds (or even hundred) dollar range, sometimes in kit form. Not many people bought PCs for the home - at my house we had one very early, an extremely expensive Tandon PC/XT (with dual floppy drives!), but we were an exception. In the early days PCs were business machines and were correspondingly expensive, so the price of the OS wasn't massively important so long as it wasn't outrageous.

v lol @ anon
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:09 UTC
@Mesmeric
by youknowmewell on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:22 UTC

So you're saying that out of all the people in the world that have access to Wikipedia and have looked at the information given about Bill Gates, not one had the moral and ethical backbone to put up truthful information about him? Are you saying that the public are sheep, and that you are the only one who knows whats "really going on"?

Feel free the share the "truth" about the history of Microsoft and Bill Gates on Wikipedia.

There are good reasons to dislike Bill Gates. I find that your reasons suck big time, simply because you're trying to make all the worlds problems Bill Gates's fault. Your opinion can be easily shrugged off because your words are so venomous and frot with clear bias that slants every word you type in the eyes of those who read them, including myself.

Suggestion: Get a grip, take a chill pill, and try polite and logical reasoning for your arguments. Then maybe someone will take you seriously, maybe.

Re:MesmerDick
by anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:26 UTC

May I suggest that we all just ignore any further comments from Mesmerick.

Are we forgetting something?
by Chris on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:26 UTC

While Microsoft wrote it's BASIC from scratch, at least AFAIK; they didn't write MS-DOS (their first OS that was close to desktop-home usability; BASIC can't be for Aunt Tillie, but DOS ran frontends that were) from scratch but bought it from a company in Seattle and slowly (and probably eventually totally) rewrote it.
So why are we crediting Microsoft? And ignoring thousands of other companies? Like the ones who brought hardware out without an 85% markup? I don't think we can call Microsoft a cost enabler... And yes folks, Mac is not much better on OS pricing.
Ok, I'm gonna read the article word for word now ;) .

Paragraph 1 errors:
Computers in the 1940's were programmable, this makes them more than a simple calculator.

Microsoft on the internet:
I think Netscape is more to thank there, Microsoft was late to the internet game and slow at that.

"....some of which revolutionized." Revolutionized what?

I *think* IBM was responsible for the open PC standard, not Microsoft.

GNU is not powered by Microsoft hatred. And, I do find that offensive.

Microsoft didn't stand in the unknown. They signed a contract with IBM to sell them an OS by license for their new computer. At the time, IBM was huge. Standing with the big guys is hardly staring into the unknown.


I'd say if anything has put the majority of desktops in homes it's been the Internet. That's why a lot of people buy computers these days, is Internet access. Internet is why Aunt Tillie has a computer and not the typewriter which she was so difficult for her to give up!

only your own perception
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:29 UTC

this is how you read my post
i dont blame Billy for the world problems at all
i dont believe Billy is the anti-Christ lol

i just don't get how you people are naive and praise the article.
and was I way OTT?
good - i had an impact
nice to see you answering my post

now forget me -
just please read that link above and arrive to your own conclusions.

NOTE: My anger is that I am fed up when people still praise Billy around me and haven't got a clue of the real facts. So much for Microsoft Propaganda. Some people win crowds with a smile "Tony Blair" is another but I wont go there now.

Re: AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.---)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:30 UTC

CP/M wasn't particularly expensive, no.

Well, compared to the "free" MSDOS you got with an IBM PC it was ;) .

Several fairly cheap 'home' computers ran it. I think the prize in this thread so far goes to the guy who mentioned Visicalc - that was the original killer app. Thousands of businesses bought PCs solely to run Visicalc on. Visicalc and Wordperfect...

Yet Visicalc was also available on CP/M (and ported from there to DOS, although I doubt that was very hard).

Yet still people moved to IBM PCs running MS-DOS. That would suggest they had some sort of competitive advantage, no ?

My recollection of the computer history books I've read is that the PC domained because - comparitively - it was very cheap.

Oh, and to follow on from the price point, the original PCs weren't cheap machines at all, they cost in the thousands of dollars range.

The original IBM PC was about $1500 (that's something that is pretty easy to find out on the 'net). Certainly not even close to the $500 PCs we have these days, but still a hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives.

For comparison, the first Mac was about $2500 (and released 3 years later).

They weren't home machines - as has already been remarked, the home market was the province of a bunch of smaller companies like Sinclair, Altair, Commodore, Acorn, Amstrad and so forth that have mostly folded since.

Well, they weren't home per se, but they certainly made running the same applications at both home and work (probably one of the more important - if rarely considered - factors in the rise of the PC and Windows) a somewhat achievable option.

They sold very small weedy computers in the hundreds (or even hundred) dollar range, sometimes in kit form.

Yes, I remember. I used to have a C64 back when I was a lad (and I've since acquired several of the other plug-into-the-TV machines as well).

Not many people bought PCs for the home - at my house we had one very early, an extremely expensive Tandon PC/XT (with dual floppy drives!), but we were an exception.

My Dad had an original IBM PC purchased for him by his employer. As you say, uncommon, but the important point it that it was happening _at all_ whereas previously it had not.

In the early days PCs were business machines and were correspondingly expensive, so the price of the OS wasn't massively important so long as it wasn't outrageous.

Well from what I recall that's the whole point as to why MS-DOS dominated - compared to it the competition _was_ outrageous.

fuckmicrosoft.com vs wikipedia.org
by youknowmewell on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:32 UTC

A clearly slanted and biased web site with a clear agenda vs. an online encyclopedia which has a policy of neutrality in information and has many eyes that see and can edit articles at will to reflect truthful information. Your link doesn't address Bill Gates so much as it addresses Microsoft. Where is the rebuttal about the information which states that Bill Gates can indeed code? How do you relate Bill Gates's company's success to world pollution?

sure
by jp on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:33 UTC

Please accussing Bill Gates of the world problems is too much. However, the guy is a burgler. Grand larceny. If they could prosecute people, instead of companies he would be in Jail(meaning intelectual property). He knows that he tricked IBM. He robed apple. He is just the best hustler ever. There were not laws for what he did at that time. But it is okay. If not him, somebody else would had done it. So please, let us not loose time defending or accusing. Do we get money from this? Tell me something that I can make money out of it, and make money like Bill from other's ignorance.

v GTK
by Terminator on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:35 UTC
Last reply to Mesmeric
by youknowmewell on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:37 UTC

Now who is the one avoiding responding to other's arguments? I'm done with you.

v Re: The MESMERIC
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:38 UTC
@ Darius
by youknowmewell on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:42 UTC

Agreed. Although I prefer Linux and the ideals of Free Software over MS and proprietary software, this article was a much needed bit of moderation for this site.

Re: Chris (IP: ---.student.iastate.edu)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:44 UTC

I *think* IBM was responsible for the open PC standard, not Microsoft.

No, IBM was responsible for the *closed* PC standard that just happened to use off the shelf components. *Compaq* was responsible for reverse engineering the IBM PC to make it "open".

And, of course, Microsoft were happy to sell them (and anyone else) a cheap OS to put onto their PCs (which is kind of the point as to why Microsoft are considered an "enabler").

GNU is not powered by Microsoft hatred. And, I do find that offensive.

GNU isn't, I agree, but a hell of a lot of people in the OSS and Free Sotware communities are.

Microsoft didn't stand in the unknown. They signed a contract with IBM to sell them an OS by license for their new computer. At the time, IBM was huge. Standing with the big guys is hardly staring into the unknown.

And at the time Microsoft was tiny. The "staring into the unknown" part was whether or not they'd be able to survive.

I'd say if anything has put the majority of desktops in homes it's been the Internet.

Certainly true today. However, back when Microsoft were laying the foundations of their dominance (and I'd argue up until the mid to late '90s, when gaming and other leisure pursuits like the internet took over), the driving factor was being able to run the same systems at home as you did at work.

This is why OSS needs to concentrate on the business desktop - it's the gateway to the home desktop. It won't work the other way around.

@youknowmewell
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:46 UTC

"And thanks to Billy he made those into disposable comodoties - littering the enviroment."

still I don't get it how you think I've equated the world pollution to Bill Gates. Is that how you read my phrase??

I think the phrase is accurate just as plastic paper bags litter the enviroment. Did I mention global warming? the Ozone layer?? Famine, starvation??

Again look "that guy can't code"
you can interpret as
(1) a crappy coder
(2) can't program at all
I will have to be much clearer - of course Bill codes, he was studying Computer Science - he is just not talented.

Yeah I read the wikipedia link you've submitted.
Have to admit I cringe seeing the photo of that guy.
And while you might see me as a fanatically anti-MS militant (which hey I suppose I am) .. it is only fair I should study that link of yours in order to understand Billy from all angles.

Know Thy Enemy.

Hope wikipedia renders in lynx
That won't be such a cringing experience.

Last thing: Why my initial objection to Wikipedia. Recently a lot of cults have been writing guru crap there - so I've heard - could be FUD.
Today I need a term "EDI" and so I went to Wikipedia - happy?

Microsoft's involvement with OS/2 ended with the 16-bit versions that were released as OS/2 1.x (the version with the crappy WIndows 3.x-like Presentation Manager and the DOS "penalty box" that could only run one DOS app (and that badly).

While they may have had some involvement with subsequent (or parallel) 32-bit OS/2 code development as part of an NT prototype, none of that code was released as "OS/2" by either party.

The OS/2 2.0 release in the spring of 1992 was the first 32-bit OS/2 product released independently by IBM as a direct competitor to Microsoft Windows, and it was also the first version of OS/2 to contain a number of new features that were developed at IBM including the following:

* the WorkPlace Shell (the SOM-based and object-oriented
desktop that would be used in all versions of OS/2 from
then on)

* the MVDM subsystem which allowed OS/2 to run multiple
DOS Virtual Machines either using a virtualzed kernel or
using real DOS diskette images, and which also formed
the basis for OS/2's new WinOS2 subsystem.

* the WinOS2 subsystem which allowed OS/2 to run Windows
3.0 programs (later 3.1 programs in OS/2 2.1) in so-
called "seamless" GUI windows on the native OS/2 PM
desktop, etc.

* the REXX scripting language, which could be used to do
anything from simple batch files to creating and
manipulating desktop objects directly, and which was
also adopted by several programs as a native scripting
language

These features were developed by IBM with absolutely no Microsoft involvement. Microsoft still had a large amount of intellectual property in OS/2 like Gordon Letwin's HPFS filesystem, but a lot of Microsoft's code was stripped out or rewritten for the 2.0 release and those remnants were almost entirely gone by the release of Warp 3 and 4.

The second release of the 32-bit OS/2 product was OS/2 2.1 which made things somewhat more stable and added Windows 3.1 support to WinOS2.

OS/2 Warp 3.0 was the third release of the 32-bit OS/2 from IBM in 1994, and OS/2 Warp 4.0 the fourth release in 1996.

I'm not counting a number of interrim releases (things like the poorly-named OS/2 for Windows, the OS/2 2.11 ("GA+SP") point release, OS/2 Warp Connect and the like, just the major versions of the client.

I'm also not counting server versions.

It's true that OS/2 2.x and Windows NT bear little resemblance to each other. That fact is readily apparent to anyone who has actually used the two platforms. :-)

@Darius
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 04:55 UTC

you make it very difficult now - who wants to satisfy your kinks (/me feels sick)

just google and research on your own.
there are some distros aimed at 486 / 386
Vector Linux is one of them.

I am still looking for an old machine as I am very interested myself in performing the comparison.

Slackware might be better.

You'd have to have 2 .. 486 machines
One with Windows 98 or 95 and many apps.
and try to match that with Linux.
that is my personal challenge but still haven't got round it.

I keep going to this school nearby with old PCs but the guy still couldn't find a 486 that at least worked to start with.

@drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:18 UTC

Well buying CP/M to run on a PC wouldn't have made a lot of sense, no, since you had a perfectly adequate operating system right there. (Though IIRC some places did it since they had something that wasn't ported to MS-DOS). However, there were machines that came preloaded with CP/M, effectively making it 'free', too.

$1,500 was a heck of a lot of money in the time period were talking about, remember - there was a lot of inflation between then and now. It's not remotely comparable to the same price today. And it's certainly not a price point that ushered in home computing! As I said before and continue to maintain, the root of home computing was the cheap kit computers of the late 70s and early 80s. In the 90s home computing moved over to the PC architecture, because the PC had developed so much in *business* use that its prices came down to a reasonable level and it was considerably more capable than competitors. Plus you could run all the same apps you ran at work. I still believe the foundation of the PC's success was in the enterprise, not on the home desktop.

You're quite right that Visicalc ran on other systems and under other operating systems as well, but the PC was considered by many to be the *best* platform to run it on, because it was fast, well-engineered and of course well-supported (IBM!)

darius:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:24 UTC

If you're willing to drop me a couple hundred bucks for capital (old computer parts aren't particularly cheap), I'll take on that challenge. I reckon I could build a 486 machine that could run Firefox under Linux acceptably.

The MESMERIC
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:25 UTC

I am still looking for an old machine as I am very interested myself in performing the comparison.
Slackware might be better.


It's not so much the distro you choose as much as the desktop enviroment/window manager. Sure, you can get a barebones (read: castrated) WM running on a 486, but if you were to tell the wholte truth, you would have to say that the DE would have much less functionality than a standard Windows desktop shell. Granted, this may not be a bad thing depending on how you work, but it's awfully convenient for the Linux evangilists to leave that last part out.

You'd have to have 2 .. 486 machines
One with Windows 98 or 95 and many apps.
and try to match that with Linux.
that is my personal challenge but still haven't got round it.


Look, I could spend $200 on hardware that would run either Linux or Windows XP perfectly. I really don't know where you're going with this, or why you're so hellbent on running on a 486. Obviously people who accuse Windows of being bloated have not installed any of the latest 'user-friendly' Linux distros running KDE or Gnome.

Anyway, what I would really like to see is an article geared towards Windows power users explaining to us why your apps are better and how we're going to get work done faster. None of this 'M$ is evil' political/religious bullshit, or 'Windows crashes all the time' - I haven't seen a blue screen in almost 3 years. Write an article assuming that both Linux and Windows are both running optimally and tell me from a functionality standpoint, why Linux on the desktop is better.

@drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:29 UTC

One more point on price - $1,565 didn't get you a lot. No display (provide your own TV - I don't remember if you could use a proper computer monitor on the original model or not), no disk drive (only a tape drive, had to buy a floppy if you wanted one, and you would...since you had a C64 I'm sure you remember how reliable tape drives were for storage :>), 64K of RAM you could upgrade if you needed to. So I'd imagine a lot of users had to spring the extra cash for a display and a disk drive.

Something interesting I found out while looking stuff up, btw - I didn't remember IBM used AMD clone processors for the original PC back in 1983!

darius:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:35 UTC

On my desktop? Well, because it's got Evolution, sound-juicer and totem. Evolution's the best mail client I've ever used (and I've used plenty for Windows - my favourite was The Bat!, but it doesn't match Evo), sound-juicer is the only app I've ever used that actually makes me feel *fuzzy* when ripping CDs, and totem's the nicest media player I've used. They're all GNOME apps so they all look lovely. The other apps I use regularly are all available on Windows too (Firefox, gaim, xchat). A *nice* console (I hate DOS prompts, now, though I know perfectly well how to use 'em and ran DOS for years) and urpmi for software installation / maintenance is nice as well, but that's just geeky frills. Plus it's reliable as sin and didn't cost me a bean (I built my own system, so that saved me a hundred bucks Canadian or so - or to put it another way, 13% of the total system cost). Good enough for you?

@darius
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:37 UTC

firefox is massively bloated
mozilla even more so
it would eat heaps of RAM

having said that ... i've seen firefox running on a Psion NETBOOK PRO which in turn was running Linux 2.6.9-r3

how much RAM a NETBOOK PRO has? I don't know 32 Mb?

you could get a lot of light-but-crappy applications to run on a minimal environment: dillo, nedit, xpaint
(most of the stuff that comes with Damn Small Linux) and a light Window Manager: FluxBox? IceWM ?

Still the idea is that you have to match Win 95 at least in looks and functionality.

Linux apps are either extremely heavy or stupidly-light (motif) .. had there been companies like Softmaker making Linux apps then - we probably could get the best of both worlds (light but shiny)

Fact is I *think* Linux apps would lose on that one.
But you can only prove it from experience.

Also can't send you money - am saving for Xmas and travel.
But am still waiting for that school they might have a 486 there.
Didn't anyone do a similar benchmark before?
There has to be some comparison somewhere in the net.

oops
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:37 UTC

Left out Rhythmbox, which I also love. It's not as frilly as, say, iTunes, admittedly, but then it also does exactly what I want it to (plays my music), looks clean and works simply, and doesn't encourage me to buy an iPod (I like my Neuros) or buy my music from ITMS (I'd rather buy CDs, thanks).

Thank Who?
by Scott Cabana on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:44 UTC

Kevin an excellent article. I agree on alot of counts, but Id like to comment on a couple. First and foremost Microsoft, Bill Gates is an excellent business man, perhaps the most ruthless in the business. Him and other person bought MSDOS from some other company for cheap and sold it for more. They certainly didnít invent that. Windows 95 was there greatest achievement and brought tons of new people to computers than ever before. Alot of that technology including Microsoft explorer was purchased from other companies who created it. Basically someone else makes the stuff and they bought it. Now they buy people from the companies they chew up. I hardly call that innovation or a vision. Bill's vision was to make money. Thatís the truth. Even Bill himself said in a book he wrote, ďIf I didnít develop Windows someone else would haveĒ Sure ive used Windows for years and used it cuz it was the only thing that ran the programs I wanted on PC hardware. Back in 1995 you had little choice. Yes, Steve Jobs did take Xerox's idea and Bill took Steves and so on. We have to blame Steve for using Mac OS as a platform plus hardware; if Mac would ever be available for PC's as well....Microsoft could be in big trouble. We all know this wonít happen so letís skip this and move on. I believe with earlier Windows OS that Microsoft knowing releases bad versions in order for us to iron out there bugs as they release patches. XP is very stable but there is serious security problems. Truth be told, no one likes Microsoft cuz they screw their customers. Take it from IBM a long time ago where you were trapped in there hardware platform and they too thought they could never get in trouble. Itís a shame too, cuz OS2 was a better OS. You said computers got cheaper. This isnít due to Microsoft; itís due to hardware competition. With OS's the only competition is Linux on an x86 platform. In fact, the OS with some new machines cost about %25 of the cost. Pretty soon the $400 specials you see at Walmart is $400 cuz of Windows, put Linux on it and its about half that. Oh yes and finally...Yes I do want to thank them. Thank You Microsoft for pissing me off so much that I went out to try Linux and Mac. I never knew other people could do a better job than you until I looked. Thank you for the wake up call. I needed it. My data loves you as well as my pocket book. Now everything is in good hands with someone else.

@Darius
by A nun, he moos on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:55 UTC

How is Linux better? Well, out-of-the-box you have multiple desktops, a secure multi-user environment, you have customizable desktops, you have X which enables you to easily set up thin workstations using older computers, you have tons of high-quality free software...

Personally, the one app I miss above all else when working in Windows is Konqueror. There's just no equivalent to this amazing app on Windows, especially with the use of kio_slaves such as file:/, ftp:/, http:/, smb:/ (for smb shares), nfs:/ (for nfs shares), fish:/ (for remote file browsing using ssh), audiocd:/, tar:/, zip:/ (these two to seamlessly browse tar and zip archives as if they were just another folder), man:/ (for easy-to-read man pages), pop3:/, nntp:/, settings:/, devices:/, etc.

Not to mention the integrated terminal emulator, split view (locked or unlocked), and the various kparts such as word editor, file size visualization (two different kind, with the filelight kpart being the best one).

Other great software includes k3b (easier to use and more powerful than Nero or -shudder- EasyCD Creator), Apollon (file sharing using various protocols), Gimp (granted, its also available for Windows), Mplayer (which is one of the best media players around, able to play pretty much any format you throw at it).

And let's not forget the numerous small touches like a command line in the panel (lets me start up programs twice as fast as using the menu), multiple languages for the UI in a single installation (if you've ever needed a bilingual PC, you know how Windows just leaves you in the cold), automatic copy'n'paste using the middle mouse button, automatic software installation through such innovative services as URPMI and Red Carpet, the capacity to run the essential Windows apps, the fact that it runs on PowerPC CPUs as well as it does on Athlon/Intel, the fact that there are basically no viruses to watch out for...

Finally, one should NEVER brush off the fact that all of this is available without helping to make an abusive monopoly richer and more powerful.

I'm a Windows Power User, I use Windows daily at work. Frankly, I think Linux has evolved beyond Windows at this point, to become a more powerful and versatile OS, without all the bad Karma of Windows.

@darius
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 05:59 UTC

the fuckmicrosoft.com article is very old and outdated
still it has a lot of good points
its not as if its all blind propaganda
apart from a couple of points (like the bloat stuff)
they address some still valid - serious issues

I couldn't go back to Windows
In fact Linux was a life-safer for me
because I vowed never to touch a PC again.

KDE functionality (specially the last version) is just way too neat - plus a lot of the stuff I run.

There are some frustrations with Linux.
Lack of games is just my number 1.
Then some apps that I would also like to have but can't make it work - but that is OK.

Otherwise for me computing became an enjoyable experience all over again.

What I seriously fear is Microsoft taking that enjoyment away.

Wasn't they that killed OS/2 Warp?
or funded the SCO case against Linux?
and are continuosly lobbying for software patents.

They have been playing dirty so far - why stop now?
At their number one competitor.

And people write "Odes of Thanks" to Bill Gates.
as if he was some sort of Saint.

How can anyone not get furious?

The others didn't fail
by Eduard PertŪŮez on Thu 16th Dec 2004 07:10 UTC

I'm tired to hear the argument that is not Microsoft that succeded but the others that failed.
I don't agree. The others didn't fail. The only problem is that, while all others where playing fair in their own business, Microsoft, from the begining, never played fair. They always played monopolistic and mafia games, and that's how they made their monopoly.
When Microsoft will decide to replicate GTA San Andreas to the XBox it will be called Bill Gates.

the "enemy" is everywhere
by int80 on Thu 16th Dec 2004 07:10 UTC

By The MESMERIC (IP: ---.as15444.net) - Posted on 2004-12-16 05:59:13

:They have been playing dirty so far - why stop now?
At their number one competitor.


Whom should they target?Linux is an array of distributions.Cut of one head of the dragons head and ten new ones will grow.The only issue that could endanger Linux in some way are the legislations and patent issues.You never know when the bomb goes of.While nothing can in fact anihilate the Linux or better yet the Open Source movement,the patent issues could paralyse the development propietary or not in some way or another.

Yeah, a _PC_ on every desktop
by Hagge on Thu 16th Dec 2004 07:13 UTC

And it's bad, what if we have had an Amiga instead? ;)

Replies
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Dec 2004 08:25 UTC

RE: Drsmithy
It's worth pointing out the difference between standard business tactics (ie: "market forces") and "monopoly abuse" is nothing more than a largely arbitrary legal judgement - and that you don't actually *know* you're committing "monopoly abuse" until that judgement is made.

Oh pulease! "you don't know until the judgement is made" is a complete cop out. Microsoft well and truely knew what they were doing was is violation of anti-competitive legislation.

Here is an example, Microsoft releases an operating system called Windows, its a great piece of software and very popular, a small company called Foobah incorporated create an operating system of their own, has great hardware and software support, and the technical support is excellent.

Now faced with this, Microsoft has two choices, one is the legal one, the other is illegal.

The legal way would be for Microsoft to head off to the war cabnet, and study this new product, conduct surveys finding out why customers are moving to this new piece of software. Once all the information is collated together, Microsoft decides to execute a number of plans, the top ones being; improving product quality, lowering the price and providing a more comprehensive support policy.

The illegal way would be for Microsoft to approach all the hardware vendors and start threatening them with "either my way of the high way" ultimatiums. They're in a dominant position and decide to use that dominant position to block the ability for a competitor to come into the marketplace.

It is pretty bloody easy; one is competiting with the competition based on product merit, the other is abusing its position as a dominant player in the market.

Oh, and as for sole-supplier contracts, they've been very illegal for a *VERY* long time. You can have a sole-supplier contract IF you have a non-sole-supplier contract available to the reseller. For example, I can enter into a contract with the local ISP, reselling their products, now, I can enter into the sole-supplier contract, which will give me a greater commission, however, I can enter a non-sole-supplier contract which will allow me to offer more than just that one ISP deal but as a result, I get less of a commission.

Oh, as for you comments regarding MacOS X and PowerMac; Apple isn't a monopoly, and thus, by only reselling Apple Macs, they're not restricting your choice.

Macs sit in the PC market, if you don't like a Mac pre-loaded with MacOS X, the purchase a IBM-Compatible PC loaded with Windows XP. The choice is out there, its up to your to exercise that choice rather than blaming others for your poor decision making.

Juggz (IP: ---.Rutgers.EDU) - Posted on 2004-12-15 21:55:43
I never understood some of the claims people have against MS. What is so wrong about bundling a browser into one's OS? If I make the software, its MY right to do what I want with it, and if that so includes bundling an internet browser, an office program, etc so be it, ITS MY RIGHT.

That is not the issue. If it were just *THAT* then the DOJ would have absolutely NO case against Microsoft. The issue was Microsoft taking the "my way or the high way" stance in regards to what OEM vendors such as Dell could install and display on the desktops they sell; you either installed Windows without Netscape as being an option for the end user, or find that you've lost your Windows OEM license contract.

Microsoft used its position to block the entry of competiting browers onto OEM desktops. That is the issue, *NOT* the fact that Internet Explorer was pre-loaded onto computers.

If Microsoft just wanted their software soley on the desktop, then they could have easily offered sweetners, like a lower OEM pricing. Microsoft had *LEGAL* means at its disposal, they chose to illegally block the ability for OEM vendors to install third party browsers, and mark my words, if it weren't for the DOJ breathing down Microsofts back, you'd have MSN and Microsoft Windows Media Player being rammed down customers and OEM throats as well, like they did with Internet Explorer.

v f&ck Microsoft
by Ed on Thu 16th Dec 2004 08:45 UTC
Re: By Ed (IP: ---.res.east.verizon.net)
by Wolf on Thu 16th Dec 2004 09:10 UTC

You can't say anything else...please keep on crying and abusing LMFAO...

RE: Adam W
by Dreamer on Thu 16th Dec 2004 09:35 UTC

[Quote]Well, you're testing memories here, ... I think QEMM was around for memory management before 386Max. [Quote]

Well it is not just testing of memory.

1) people are forgetful. What make computing today is not by 1 company or 1 person foresight, it is by many.

2) people are ignorance. Without the actually knowing the history of what makes a PC today, it would seems like 1 company invented everything.

3) There is nothing wrong with what microsoft has done to bring down the price (in the past, in some cases), but there is also nothing wrong for linux to push it further down to zero cost! Thank the people who do the job they done, we are all sitting on top of giants! [Quote from Newton]

---------------------------------------------------

Well, i think not much people talks about or remember 9, turtle beach, roland, Qemm and 386max ....

Just a show of hand, how many people actual use CP/M before ... (It was a nice little OS running on a 5.25 inch floppy)



Would the Internet exist without MS???
by Giorgio on Thu 16th Dec 2004 10:24 UTC

[begin_quote]
Without Microsoft, the Internet would not have proliferated nearly as quickly. Once again MS did not invent it, but they enabled a huge amount of access to it.
[end_quote]

[begin_ironic]
Oh, sure... on Windows 3.1 you had to install a TCP/IP stack from a 3rd party vendor (I think it was called Trumpet Winsock) while at the same time OS/2 2.0 had an integrated TCP/IP stack.

And on Windows 95, when you installed a PSTN modem the TCP/IP protocol wasn't installed by default (who will ever use TCP/IP?), and you had to add it by hand.

So, I definitely agree: without Microsoft maybe the Internet woudn't even exist...
[end_ironic]

Anyway, I think the article's not so bad as a whole, and it's partly right in saying that MS Windows was (and is) a driving factor for mass-diffusion of personal computers.

Of course, the main driving factor has been the fast price drop of hardware, consequence of competition by different manufacturers, consequence of IBM's decision not to keep the PC specs closed.

(Otherwise Macs, that at the time were by far better then PCs, would have won out).

Bye

RE: Yeah, thanks to Microsoft ...
by Bill on Thu 16th Dec 2004 10:24 UTC

I would have expected an Amiga on every desktop...
But this was held back by the 680x0 lack of development and Commodore's demand for instant returns later in the Amigas lifetime.

The PC was popular from competition - bring down hardware prices and spurning development, that is the PC with any OS.

Its the PC hardware that became popular and replaced the already popular Amigas, but as for the OS, it was only Microsofts business practices which made the poor-quality Windows so popular compared to other OSs.

Microsft was both devious and lucky to be the king of OSs running on the popular PC hardware.

But now I have given up with Windows and now I run a high-quality OS on my popular PC hardware. ;)

We actually owe apple for the win95 'innovations'

Personally, I dont think we owe MS much overall.. maybe at the beginning a bit, but past making computers cheaper, I cant think of any real innovations they have created

Windows
by guni on Thu 16th Dec 2004 10:31 UTC

Should we thank MS for the cheap hardware available?They hope that 1 day the biggest cost of a pc will be the MS software... Right, that's rediculous. Hardware should be expensive, as it's very toxic and power consuming. There is way too much crappy hardware out there. And if MS has to be thanked for that... well I wouldn't say thank you. But it's stupid to look at the computer evolution and focus on this 1 company, altough it has big influence. They wanted a pc for everyone, well now we're flooded in toxic hightechjunk.

giorgio:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 11:03 UTC

yeah, Trumpet. worked pretty darn well, actually, I never had a single problem with it.

Author Note:
by Kevin Russo on Thu 16th Dec 2004 11:03 UTC

Author Note:
I really had no idea that the hate for MS was so rampent. I personally use a several Linux systems, out of choice not because I feel like I was forced by MS. However I and many around still have a use for MS. A lot of the people posting are complaining of spyware and virus'. I must manage several Windows boxes at work and several more at home. I don't get virus'or spyware because I educate the people around me on the dangers. I also keep my machines updated. I have to ask myself what kind of activities to these people partake in while on line. You cannot blame MS for a virus that you got if your virus software is not up to date and were engaging in what some might call immoral activities. People need to take responsibility for their actions. People tend to treat computers like toys however they can be very dangerous if your not protected. Maybee we should treat them more like guns and respect the power that they provide.

This link is correct...
by Bill on Thu 16th Dec 2004 11:12 UTC

For considering the future of where we are going, I think this link is very useful here:

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-to-kill-open-source-on-deskt...

v What a piece of crap!
by jens on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:07 UTC
Re: A nun, he moos (IP: ---.85-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:22 UTC

How is Linux better? Well, out-of-the-box [...]

"Out of the box" is a ridiculous constraint to impose in the context of "power users".

you have multiple desktops,

A freely available download from Microsoft gives you that.

a secure multi-user environment,

Windows has that.

you have customizable desktops,

And that, albeit to a more limited degree.

you have X which enables you to easily set up thin workstations using older computers,

Whoa, settle down. This is *desktop* use.

you have tons of high-quality free software...

Got that.

Personally, the one app I miss above all else when working in Windows is Konqueror. There's just no equivalent to this amazing app on Windows, especially with the use of kio_slaves such as file:/, ftp:/, http:/, smb:/ (for smb shares), nfs:/ (for nfs shares), fish:/ (for remote file browsing using ssh), audiocd:/, tar:/, zip:/ (these two to seamlessly browse tar and zip archives as if they were just another folder), man:/ (for easy-to-read man pages), pop3:/, nntp:/, settings:/, devices:/, etc.

You can achieve most of this from Explorer, albeit with different semantics.

Not to mention the integrated terminal emulator, split view (locked or unlocked), and the various kparts such as word editor, file size visualization (two different kind, with the filelight kpart being the best one).

This stuff is definitely better.

Other great software includes k3b (easier to use and more powerful than Nero or -shudder- EasyCD Creator), Apollon (file sharing using various protocols), Gimp (granted, its also available for Windows), Mplayer (which is one of the best media players around, able to play pretty much any format you throw at it).

Personally I've always found Nero quite capable of anything I've ever thrown at it. I'm not sure what context you're using "file sharing" in. "Media Player Classic" is my preferred viewer on Windows and whether or not it can play stuff is dependent on the codecs installed on the system

And let's not forget the numerous small touches like a command line in the panel (lets me start up programs twice as fast as using the menu),

You can achieve the same program start up shortcut with the "Address" toolbar in the Taskbar. Or just use Windows+R to quickly access the "Run" dialog.

multiple languages for the UI in a single installation (if you've ever needed a bilingual PC, you know how Windows just leaves you in the cold),

I've never needed this and hence never tried it, so I'll assume you're correct.

automatic copy'n'paste using the middle mouse button,

Available via TweakUI.

automatic software installation through such innovative services as URPMI and Red Carpet,

Easily doable in an Active Directory environment.

Of course, now you're getting into the stuff that Windows simply can't do because it's only an OS, not a complete distribution of OS + software. Apples & oranges stuff.

the capacity to run the essential Windows apps, the fact that it runs on PowerPC CPUs as well as it does on Athlon/Intel, the fact that there are basically no viruses to watch out for...

Not sure I see any real value in running on PPC.

As for viruses, only run as a regular user, keep the firewall on and avoid IE and you've got little to worry about.

I'm a Windows Power User, I use Windows daily at work. Frankly, I think Linux has evolved beyond Windows at this point, to become a more powerful and versatile OS, without all the bad Karma of Windows.

I suspect one of the big problems you have with Windows is trying to use it like Linux+KDE (or GNOME, or whatever).

Re: Andrew Luecke (IP: ---.eburwd6.vic.optusnet.com.au)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:45 UTC

Actually, MS based their desktop on Mac os X

We actually owe apple for the win95 'innovations'


Say what ? Windows 95 was released, oh, about 5 - 6 *years* before OS X. The Windows interface has not changed substantially since then.

Added to that, if you're going to limit the comparison to _only_ MacOS (or OS X) and Windows, then they're fairly different GUIs. Outside of the basic and fundamental WIMP concepts, they don't have a great deal in common.

Re: kaiwai (IP: ---.dialup.xtra.co.nz)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:47 UTC

Oh pulease! "you don't know until the judgement is made" is a complete cop out.

Well, given only a court can rule a corporation a monopoly, it's basically the truth.

Microsoft well and truely knew what they were doing was is violation of anti-competitive legislation.

Sure, *if* they were a monopoly at the time. At the time, this hadn't been decided.

Here is an example, Microsoft releases an operating system called Windows, its a great piece of software and very popular, a small company called Foobah incorporated create an operating system of their own, has great hardware and software support, and the technical support is excellent.

The illegal way would be for Microsoft to approach all the hardware vendors and start threatening them with "either my way of the high way" ultimatiums. They're in a dominant position and decide to use that dominant position to block the ability for a competitor to come into the marketplace.


Noting, of course, that if you're not a monopoly this sort of thing is perfectly legal (and normal).

It is pretty bloody easy; one is competiting with the competition based on product merit, the other is abusing its position as a dominant player in the market.

No, one is competing directly, the other is leveraging your existing assets.

Oh, and as for sole-supplier contracts, they've been very illegal for a *VERY* long time.

So a company can sign a contract with another company agreeing to sell _only_ their products ?

In that case, why do so many businesses only sell one particular supplier's product ?

Oh, as for you comments regarding MacOS X and PowerMac; Apple isn't a monopoly, and thus, by only reselling Apple Macs, they're not restricting your choice.

There is no market definition you could apply to Microsoft to define them as a monopoly that wouldn't also define Apple as a monopoly, if applied in the same way.

Macs sit in the PC market, [...]

Actually, in the antitrust trial, the ruling was that they _didn't_ sit in the same market (the market definition was "OSes for intel x86-compatible CPUs"). Macs were not considered an alternative to PCs running Windows when Microsoft were ruled a monopoly (the primary reason my opinion is that ruling was an absolute crock of shit).

The choice is out there, its up to your to exercise that choice rather than blaming others for your poor decision making.

You know, I keep trying to tell that to people but they always says Microsoft is forcing them to buy Windows.

Re: AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.---)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:49 UTC

$1,500 was a heck of a lot of money in the time period were talking about, remember - there was a lot of inflation between then and now. It's not remotely comparable to the same price today. And it's certainly not a price point that ushered in home computing!

I realise that.

Look, I'm not trying to say the original PC was the equivalent of a US$500 emachines box today, I'm just trying to point out that compared to its contemporaries it was very cheap and that is probably the single most important reason it became dominant.

Certainly a PC for the home was not the domain of anything but a minority of households, but it *did* make it economically feasible for companies to give their employees machines they could perform tasks on at home and roll them out extensively in the business.

I still believe the foundation of the PC's success was in the enterprise, not on the home desktop.

Well, I agree completely and I thought I was being clear about that ;) .

Something interesting I found out while looking stuff up, btw - I didn't remember IBM used AMD clone processors for the original PC back in 1983!

Yep, one of the conditions IBM imposed was that the CPU had to be available from at least two different suppliers. I'm pretty sure that initial deal is what allowed AMD to simply copy intel's chips under license all the way up until the 486 (and they initially stumbled when they had to start designing their own).

Well, because it's got Evolution, sound-juicer and totem. Evolution's the best mail client I've ever used (and I've used plenty for Windows - my favourite was The Bat!, but it doesn't match Evo),

I have to agree Evolution is an _excellent_ application, although IMHO Outlook 2003 in an Exchange environment is its equal.

Evolution really has the potential to form the base of an OSS "killer suite" if it can be married to a sufficiently functional backend so as to compete with Exchange.

RE:
by Joujou on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:50 UTC

>Noting, of course, that if you're not a monopoly this sort of thing is perfectly legal (and normal)

Hell it's not. I want more choice, more freedom, more technology, more competition, better software. Utlimately a software product sells better only if it is superior. Not because of these practices.

Thanks? For what?
by walterbyrd on Thu 16th Dec 2004 12:51 UTC

Msft is just a marketing company. Msft never invented anything. All msft has ever done is capitalize on the ideas of others. Often illegally. Don't believe it? Here is a short list of ideas *not* invented by msft:

- PC operating system
- 32-bit multitasking OS
- Local area Networking
- Internet access
- GUI interface
- multi-media computing
- Popular applications: databases, wordprocessors, spreadsheets, browsers, email clients, etc.

Msft didn't make anything possible; msft just grabbed the ideas and the markets from other companies.

Re: Joujou (IP: ---.halls.manchester.ac.uk)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 13:03 UTC

Utlimately a software product sells better only if it is superior. Not because of these practices.

An excellent point. The problem is people often disagree on the definition of "superior".

Almost totally factually and historically wrong
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 13:22 UTC

The author gets ot wrong from the first paragraph. The first electronic computer was the ultra-secret'Colossus' built by the British during WW2 to break German codes.

MSDOS was little more than QDOS - itself a stolen copy of CP/M.

OS/2 needed a 386 with 16MB of ram - a staggeringly expensive machine at the time. The IBM OS/2 ads were a farce - not even showing the OS in action.

Compaq hacked a BIOS which allowed non-IBM machines to run MSDOS 100% with compatibility.

Bill Gates managed to license MSDOS to IBM largely because of strong family connections to the IBM board.

CP/M was the preferred OS for the IBM PC.

MS has suceeded mostly by theft and unethical behaviour. The rest is due to incompetence on behalf of its competitors.

Had MS NOT suceeded we would probably have far better software and hardware solutions today.


Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.tpgi.com.au)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 13:40 UTC

MSDOS was little more than QDOS - itself a stolen copy of CP/M.

Well, maybe in the same way Linux is a "stolen" copy of Unix.

OS/2 needed a 386 with 16MB of ram - a staggeringly expensive machine at the time. The IBM OS/2 ads were a farce - not even showing the OS in action.

OS/2 2.0 "required" a 386 with 2MB. You needed 4MB to do anything more than just boot the thing and 8MB was reasonable for actual use. 16MB and you were flying.

(Note that a 386 with 4MB - 8MB RAM was still a very expensive machine at the time, which had a lot to do with OS/2 2.x's early lack of success).

Compaq hacked a BIOS which allowed non-IBM machines to run MSDOS 100% with compatibility.

There was nothing "hacked" about it. It was a textbook example of clean-room reverse engineering.

Bill Gates managed to license MSDOS to IBM largely because of strong family connections to the IBM board.

The Kildalls not being particularly interested in licensing CP/M to IBM probably didn't help much either.

Had MS NOT suceeded we would probably have far better software and hardware solutions today.

That's a pretty bold assertion.

Simple Analogy
by DOVE on Thu 16th Dec 2004 14:14 UTC

Apple the athiest.
Microsoft the satanist.
Linux the purist.

Me, the pessimist.

@drsmithy
by A nun, he moos on Thu 16th Dec 2004 14:17 UTC

I wasn't responding to you, you MS apologist! ;-) But for the record:

"Out of the box" is a ridiculous constraint to impose in the context of "power users".

Uh, no. Most of the add-ons you speak of are either a) not free, or b) cause instability in some versions of Windows. I want as system that "just works" and that can be installed all in one go.

A freely available download from Microsoft gives you [multiple desktops]

I don't want to download it, I want it installed by default.

Windows has [a secure multi-user environment]

Which is why, as a simple user, I can go and delete important system files? Riiiight...

Whoa, settle down. This is *desktop* use. (re: thin workstation)

I am talking about desktop use. My gf loves her linux desktop, but her machine is a bit older and KDE is a bit sluggish on it. So instead of installing it on her machine she connects to mine via XDMCP and she has the exact same Linux desktop on her machine than she has when connecting on mine. This is desktop use, and Windows can't easily provide that.

You can achieve most of this from Explorer, albeit with different semantics.

Really? Can you browse files through SSH in Explorer? Can you browse ZIP and TAR files like they were folders? Can you browse POP3 or IMAP mailboxes, or NNTP news servers with Explorer?

"Media Player Classic" is my preferred viewer on Windows and whether or not it can play stuff is dependent on the codecs installed on the system

Can Media Player Classic play Quicktime movies from http://trailers.apple.com ?

You can achieve the same program start up shortcut with the "Address" toolbar in the Taskbar. Or just use Windows+R to quickly access the "Run" dialog.

I'm talking about a real command line, with full auto-completion.

Damn, gotta go to work, I'll continue this a bit later!

Simple Analogy
by DOVE on Thu 16th Dec 2004 14:19 UTC

Me, the dyslectic pessimist ;-)

Atheist.... sorry apple!

Desktop systems would still grow w/o Microsoft.
by Todd on Thu 16th Dec 2004 14:34 UTC

Well Microsoft was Actually very late on many components. Espectilly the Internet. The internet was gaining popularity back in windows 3.1 where you had to try hard to get winsock to work. For windows 95 they made connecting to the internet easer but the Internet wasn't Microsoft focus, they wanted you to use MSN not the Internet. So Windows 95 was setup to use MSN and compete with AOL and Prodigy. Which were less internet and more like large BBS's. Before Microsoft Office was popular people were using Word Perfect, Lotus 123, and FoxPro (Before Microsoft bought them out) And this was back in the DOS days and at the time MSDOS wasn't the only PC compatible Dos out there. There was DRDOS, PCDOS, and some others. Windows Did not cause a mass spread to point and click it was very gradual. The reason windows spread faster then mac was because there was more software for DOS then Apple. So when windows 3.1 can run Dos apps and Windows apps. They went and used it. Ran there DOS apps ontop of windows then they just went more windows based, very gradually. All windows did was make it so the PC person can go to a Mac person and go See I have a GUI too. Thus generally loosing sales to more PCs. If it wern't for microsoft we would have a more even split. Amiga, Comidors, Apples, IBM, and Other PC running different platforms where users can acutually choose the best tool for what they want to do.

Re: Re: Andrew Luecke
by Bill on Thu 16th Dec 2004 15:01 UTC


>> Actually, MS based their desktop on Mac os X
>>
> We actually owe apple for the win95 'innovations'
>

Actually, it looks largely like the Acorn Archimedes desktop.
in Win95 Microsoft copied the bar along the bottom, complete with button, running tasks, and daemons on the right. Complete copy! And copied the windowed file browsing each window with a menu system... And a million other things.

Archimedes was a RISC OS and was substantially faster and more stable than Win95 though at that time.

Who says it's a good thing
by Peter on Thu 16th Dec 2004 15:46 UTC

But why is it a good thing to have a PC on every desktop?? I don't understand how that's a good thing. Isn't it like saying a car in every driveway, or a gun on every gun rack? I mean, let's lay off this whole PC on every desktop shite.

None of the above could be considered positive progressive thinking. How about developing public transport that makes car ownership redundant, how about making the world safe so people don't feel the need to arm themselves... I don't know what the solution to the PC problem is, but putting one on every desk isn't exactly genius.

Amstrad are the ones to thank
by PM on Thu 16th Dec 2004 15:52 UTC

It was Amstrad that started the whole affordable PC thing with the Amstrad PCW. They where the 'first' people to make a truly affordable office machine, massively undercutting the competition.

Back in 1985, before MS-DOS or Windows was a real concept let alone a household name Amstrad pushed hard to make "a machine on every desktop" a real reality. And achieved it.

If it wasn't for Amstrad IBM et al wouldn't have started dropping their prices as hard as they did and the PC wouldn't have been such a cheap commodity.

Also, we have the whole IBM Compatable reverse engineering movement to thank as well.

MS just put the icing on the cake.

OS/2 requirements and ads...
by Rich Steiner on Thu 16th Dec 2004 15:58 UTC

I ran OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 on a 486DX/33 with 8MB for two years, and it was actually pretty responsive. My eventual upgrade to 20MB did make a big difference when loading larger apps, but performance once things were loaded was decent in both memory configurations. The key was setting up the swAPPER.DAT so it pre-allocated the expected amount, removing the overhead from OS/2 having to dynamically resize the thing...

OS/2 Warp 3 actually LOWERED the requirements, and ran somewhat faster on low RAM machines than 2.1 did. That's one of the reasons the public beta was called "Warp", and why IBM later adopted the term for the formal product name.

About IBM's OS/2 ads: yes, they were a farce. Some of them were very good at getting attention, but it was almost impossibel to tell what the ads were actually referring to.

Re: A nun, he moos
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 16:05 UTC

Personally, the one app I miss above all else when working in Windows is Konqueror. There's just no equivalent to this amazing app on Windows, especially with the use of kio_slaves such as file:/, ftp:/, http:/, smb:/ (for smb shares), nfs:/ (for nfs shares), fish:/ (for remote file browsing using ssh), audiocd:/, tar:/, zip:/ (these two to seamlessly browse tar and zip archives as if they were just another folder), man:/ (for easy-to-read man pages), pop3:/, nntp:/, settings:/, devices:/, etc.

There's a little app called Directory Opus v8 - here's an in-depth review:
http://www.monroeworld.com/reviews/dopus8/1.php

Check out especially the part about flat file view/file collections and customization. Sure, it doesn't have some things that Konquerer does such as a built-in terminal emulator, but those are more 'Linux-y' type features anyway. However, what it lacks in those areas, it more than makes up for in others.

Also, would love to see articles in regards to Evo vs The Bat (ya, I know Evo is more PIM-centric like Outlook, but I wonder about it's email prowess, espeically when it comes to Templates). I've also heard people say that K3b is better than Nero, but have never heard why? Also, it'll be interesting to see how Gaim stacks up against the new Trillian v3. I have tried Gaim on Windows - I think Trillian is better.

Keep in mind that some of us have been PC hobbyists (and have been actively using Microsoft products alongside alternative products) for many years. I started myself using MS-DOS 3.3 and Windows/286 2.1 in 1988, but I'm also a fairly long-time MacOS, PC/GEOS, OS/2, and Linux user.

Some of us seen a lengthy list of arguably superior (at least on technical/functional ground) products get plowed-under or shouldered aside by Microsoft's offerings, in some cases by questionable methods which were adamently denied by Microsoft advocates at the time but later confirmed in a court of law, and after a decade or two it starts to get old.

Why can't I do a "reveal codes" in Word like I could in WordPerfect 15 years ago? Why doesn't Windows let me create workgroup folders on the desktop like I could do under OS/2 a dozen years ago, or have shortcuts that are as intelligent as OS/2 shadows when it comes to tracking files? And why isn't Windows able to distribute its desktop (and application displays) across a network like I've been able to do with Linux for over ten years?

The answer: Microsoft doesn't have to add those features to their standard products in order to dominate. People use it anyway despite the lack of capabilities, mainly because they don't realize how sadly lacking their products really are in certain areas. Their monopoly breeds a fault-tolerant user base which is largely ignorant of alternatives.

@Peter
by Anon on Thu 16th Dec 2004 16:14 UTC

Good point.

Re: Rich Steiner
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 16:48 UTC

People use it anyway despite the lack of capabilities, mainly because they don't realize how sadly lacking their products really are in certain areas.

IMHO, even those of us who understand the inherent weaknesses in Windows, it all comes down to a matter of which features are most important to us. For example, Windows does not have the virtual desktops feature built into the OS. But do I care? No. Why? Because I've been used to the single-desktop model for so long that even when I had them in Linux, I never once used them. I really didn't see the need for it, because I run most of my apps maximized anyway and don't run at insane resolutions. Same with having a terminal emulator built into the file manger - hell, I don't even use a terminal emulator at all, so what need to I have for this?
However, IMHO, what Windows lacks in OS prowess, it more than makes up for with superior 3rd party apps. Besides the ease of use factor as compared to Linux, this is probably the only advantage that it has. Linux is technically more advanced, more customizable, and a hell of a lot more secure, but when I look and see that approx. half the desktop apps it runs are still in beta on SourceForge, any advantages it might've had go right out the window (no pun intended).

It's a chicken and egg cycle. Same with device support. A hardware vendor is often hesitant to support an OS which is not mainstream, but it's hard for an OS to become mainstream without that hardware vendor support.

Those are some of the reasons why the cost of entering the OS market is so high.

I agree that Windows is "good enough" for most people, and for that reason it remains popular. It does perform the basic task of a desktop OS adequately. Same with many of Microsoft's applications, for the same reasons.

The part that bugs me is why people are so accepting of this. They wouldn't be happy if there was only one model of automobile available that was "good enough" for most people, would they? Or only one type of restaurant that served food which was "good enough" for most people?

Why is the software market any different?

I say let's get rid of the lock-in that Microsoft has on its various document/media formats and network protocols, and let's see where the market takes us!

Windows weakness
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 17:05 UTC

MHO, even those of us who understand the inherent weaknesses in Windows, it all comes down to a matter of which features are most important to us. For example, Windows does not have the virtual desktops feature built into the OS. But do I care? No. Why? Because I've been used to the single-desktop model for so long that even when I had them in Linux, I never once used them. I really didn't see the need for it, because I run most of my apps maximized anyway and don't run at insane resolutions. Same with having a terminal emulator built into the file manger - hell, I don't even use a terminal emulator at all, so what need to I have for this?
However, IMHO, what Windows lacks in OS prowess, it more than makes up for with superior 3rd party apps. Besides the ease of use factor as compared to Linux, this is probably the only advantage that it has. Linux is technically more advanced, more customizable, and a hell of a lot more secure, but when I look and see that approx. half the desktop apps it runs are still in beta on SourceForge, any advantages it might've had go right out the window (no pun intended).


Well what is Windows really? It is not a lightweight like RiscOS and QNX as it is too big and bulky for that class and it is not a workhorse like FreeBSD as Windows buckles on heavy loads long before FreeBSD does on identical servers. It is not a home OS as it harder to adminster then the likes of MacOS,QNX and RiscOS.

Really Windows has a indenty crisis, it is a jack of all trades and a master of none.

I've always thought some of the opinion pieces on OSNews were subpar, but I liked the rest of the content.

However, this article is so poorly written and researched, I cannot trust a news source that would have the poor judgement to publish it. Even if I loved Microsoft, this article would be insulting as its not even accurate, and is written in vague meaningless language.

Also, there is no information about the author, which leads me to believe it was written by a 14 year old computer geek who did not witness the computer industry in the 80s & early 90s.

Microsoft has never invented anything, but it very good at integrating & business. It has the most complete software suite around and knows how to sell it. However, MS did not make PCs cheaper. MS did lead any revolution in usability. Open source products mimic MS not because MS has superior design & technology, but in order to attract users.

I will no longer be visiting OSNews.

100 years ago, M$ would have been broken up much like Standard Ohio. Their methods have been suspect since the earliest days and their future appears to be clouded in legal battles over patents and related. What kind of example has/does this set to younger generations...just garbage...not visionary like Apple. Grip tighter Bill...and it will slip from your fingers like so much sand.

correction
by Jeffrey Harmison on Thu 16th Dec 2004 17:19 UTC

that's 'Standard OIL'...lol!

@drsmithy - and FREEDOM of Choice
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 17:36 UTC

As for viruses, only run as a regular user, keep the firewall on and avoid IE and you've got little to worry about.

hey that is simply not true.
i've installed Windows XP on my laptop
(mind you I had to uninstalled .. see if you install your Legal Copy of XP over 7 times you lose your right to activation)

and in less than 2 hours I had an annoying worm.
i did have my windows firewall on prior to being connected on the internet.
i did download opera first thing - but catch 22 hey? you are only given Internet Explorer to start off with
i did kill and disabled as many services as I could think off - that wudn't disabled my system.

the worm kept shutting off my PC

of course after a while I've uninstalled the buggy OS - and am at peace.

anyway your arguments at least on the virus issue is very flawed indeed.

also can't stand an Operating System that ages so fast - getting slower + slower - the more you install/uninstall software the more unstable it becomes - the culprit? The Registry.

And fot those that state they've never had a Windows XP Crash for 3 years? (Seriously can't believe it but OK .. let's suppose so) - they've never went about installing more than just half a dozen of essential programs.

No Visual Studio 6 / Visual Studio.NET / Corel Draw Suite 12 / Full Microsoft Office Suite / etc

At least in Linux you can install 6000+ fonts without making the system unstable. Please try that on Windows XP ;)

At least in Linux the number of applications barely has an impact on the performance of the Desktop. Which off course you can always prelink ... talk about extra-fast when firing programs!

Windows prelinking is a joke (and a host for viruses/exploits).

-----------------------------------

All that aside I am not here to dispute my OS is better than yours.

Yours have more tonnes of games. Yours have some better still unmatched software (Cubase/Adobe+Corel+Macromedia stuff). Yours have easier operating with many gadgets and hardware.

Of course - Microsoft has been behind all this. Making sure other OS's get as little support and interoperability as possible.

It's hardly a "conspiracy theory" its a well known verifiable fact.

So my gripe remains - as Billy is determined to destroy the freedom of me using an alternative OS - Linux.

I can't care less what you use - I just want the right to have a choice!

Billy has been massacring that very choice - put that into your lethargic brains.

I will post this link again.
Just read it and research each point objectively:
http://www.wastelandranger.org/microshit/whatsbad.html

RE: Yes, and having apps generates even more development.
by Morin on Thu 16th Dec 2004 17:38 UTC

> I agree that Windows is "good enough" for most people,
> and for that reason it remains popular. It does perform the
> basic task of a desktop OS adequately. Same with many of
> Microsoft's applications, for the same reasons.
>
> The part that bugs me is why people are so accepting of
> this. They wouldn't be happy if there was only one model
> of automobile available that was "good enough" for most
> people, would they? Or only one type of restaurant that
> served food which was "good enough" for most people?

With the food example, you are right. But would people really be unhappy if there was only one type of car? If it is "good enough", I think they would be quite happy.

Why? Because food is something people enjoy. Cars and computers are only tools. Most people have a life and couldn't care less about their car or computer. Only hobbyists and professionals are the exception.

@Rich Steiner
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 17:42 UTC

"Their monopoly breeds a fault-tolerant user base which is largely ignorant of alternatives."

Bravo.
Couldn't have stated it better.

Windows isn't "good enough"
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 18:31 UTC

I agree that Windows is "good enough" for most people,
and for that reason it remains popular. It does perform the
basic task of a desktop OS adequately. Same with many of
Microsoft's applications, for the same reasons.

No windows is not good enough for the average joe since it is not a home OS just like Linux is not good enough for the average joe.

The average joe does wants to be able to administer their system with ease and this is where Windows falls flat on its face.

Ask a newbie to install Windows XP on a blank HD and they will have a much harder time then installing MacOS X,QNX or RiscOS on a blank HD. Windows is NOT made for home users

They aren't my words, but rather the words I hear from a lot of folks who honestly *believe* that Windows works for them.
Hey, if they really do like the status quo with Windows, then more power to them! They're a lot more tolerant of that particular platform than I am!

Me, I'm still an OS/2 user. That, and Linux. If it weren't for a number of Windows games I really enjoy playing, that OS wouldn't even be installed on my LAN...

RE: Windows isn't "good enough"
by Morin on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:10 UTC

Not it isn't good enough and people regularly say "my computer is broken". But nowadays it is accepted for computers to screw up, people to fail their tasks if "it was the computer not working" and, last but not least, people don't want to spend their time fixing it if the problem is not fatal for them.

and some of us are more naive
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:13 UTC

... refusing to dual boot for gaming
in the hope one day we will get proper native Linux game in their hundreds.

Meanwhile Microsoft is bribing and purchasing governments http://www.eu2004.ie/sitetools/sponsorship.asp
make sure the "Computing Methods" Patent Law becomes a sad reality in now Europe.

Re: A nun, he moos (IP: ---.85-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:19 UTC

Uh, no. Most of the add-ons you speak of are either a) not free, or b) cause instability in some versions of Windows.

Firstly, I didn't list anything that wasn't free.
Secondly, KDE is hardly 100% stable itself.

I want as system that "just works" and that can be installed all in one go.

For your definition of "just works".

Again, a restriction of "out of the box" when talking about _power users_ is ridiculous. It's like comparing between Windows and Linux with the restriction you can only compare to different versions of Redhat.

I don't want to download it, I want it installed by default.

So will you carry that restriction over the Linux ? If I find a Linux distro that doesn't install enough stuff to be competitive with Windows will you consider Windows to be better ?

Which is why, as a simple user, I can go and delete important system files?

Which important files ?

I am talking about desktop use.

No, you're not. You're talking about using it as a server. By definition.

However, a "power user" could (and they often do) grab a free evaluation copy of Windows 2003 and use it in the way you describe.

Really?

Yep.

Can you browse files through SSH in Explorer?

No.

Can you browse ZIP and TAR files like they were folders?

ZIP: Yes. TAR: No.

Can you browse POP3 or IMAP mailboxes, or NNTP news servers with Explorer?

No.

Most of the other stuff (websites, SMB shares) you can.

Can Media Player Classic play Quicktime movies from http://trailers.apple.com ?

Assuming you have the Quicktime codec installed, yes.

I'm talking about a real command line, with full auto-completion.

I know what you're talking about, that's why I specified to achieve the same end with regards to launching programs. The Run dialog will auto-complete.

Again, the biggest problem is that you're trying to use Windows the same way you use Linux and KDE.

The MESMERIC
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:41 UTC

And fot those that state they've never had a Windows XP Crash for 3 years? (Seriously can't believe it but OK .. let's suppose so) - they've never went about installing more than just half a dozen of essential programs.

Wrong, try 40+. Your assumptions about what Windows can and can't do seems to be based soley on the fact that you don't know how to set up and run a Windows box properly. Of course, I don't fault you for that, as I really couldn't do any better in Linux either.

RE: Thanks, Microsoft
by Randy Yates on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:55 UTC

The article makes a good point. Before Microsoft, users had to deal with a myriad of display and printer drivers FOR EACH AND EVERY PROGRAM. Microsoft fixed that, and they deserve no small amount of credit for that.

HOWEVER..., they have since been playing games ("do it the Microsoft Way or the highway," "you must pay me to debug my software," etc.) that have destroyed the credibility and respect they created from their innovation.

I take it you never used an early Mac? That was released in 1984, and it didn't have the complex driver configuration you had to deal with in DOS.

Also, don't forget that DOS itself was from Microsoft (in name if not in terms of development), so Microsoft brought us the very complexity you say they "saved" us from...

Really, it's backwards
by Tobias on Thu 16th Dec 2004 19:58 UTC

It should be coming from Gates, and it should say, "Thanks for my big ass house and my Porsches. Even you Open Source people have bought machines with my OS on it, so even if you don't like me, thanks for anteing up anyway. Oh yeah, Paul says thanks too."

RE: Windows isn't "good enough"
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 20:17 UTC

Not it isn't good enough and people regularly say "my computer is broken". But nowadays it is accepted for computers to screw up, people to fail their tasks if "it was the computer not working" and, last but not least, people don't want to spend their time fixing it if the problem is not fatal for them.
I'm not talking about reliability, I'm talking about ease of use. Sit a newbie in front of BeOS,QNX,GEM,Amiga OS,Risc OS, Mac OS,Geos,ect and the user will be able to actully learn the system far more then Windows as they are far more simpler for example lets say a newbie want to remove a app while you might say no big deal just run the unistaller but alot of the time uninstaller will ask the user if it is okay to remove a file that MAY be shared (the key work is may) say yes and it is shared and you can break another program say no and it could be wasting HD space. Not only that but alot of uninstaller leave crap in the registry, oh and lets not forget Windows cryptic error messages.

Windows is not a home OS and not ment for the average joe.

What innovation, Randy?
by Rich Steiner on Thu 16th Dec 2004 20:24 UTC

The majority of products that Microsoft markets were initially developed by other companies and then purchased and extended by Microsoft.

This includes MS-DOS (Seattle Computer Systems), Internet Explorer (Spyglass), Visual Basic (Cooper Software), Visual C++ (Lattice), PowerPoint (Forethought), FrontPage (Vermeer Technologies), Access (Fox Software), Visio (Visio), SQL Server (Sybase, Panarama Software), and even Microsoft Paint (ZSoft).

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/microsoft/amicusbr2.pdf

v Lumbergh is a moron
by Penetrator on Thu 16th Dec 2004 20:54 UTC
Re: and some of us are more naive
by Anonymous on Thu 16th Dec 2004 21:16 UTC

Meanwhile Microsoft is bribing and purchasing governments http://www.eu2004.ie/sitetools/sponsorship.asp
make sure the "Computing Methods" Patent Law becomes a sad reality in now Europe.


In actual truth, there is no software work performed at Microsoft Ireland, which is basically the same private company for Microsoft UK. Badly described, but they are just the marketing arm of m$ in the UK and dont do any work on any m$ product there in that region, all that work gets done in india and/or redmond.

They have the Irish office as a big tax dodge so they dont have to pay VAT and thus avoid helping to pay for basic amedities like roads and hospitals and other things that m$ customers really do need, ie are leeching. But dont forget to buy a licence and make their pet BSA happy or they'll sue you.

@Darius
by The MESMERIC on Thu 16th Dec 2004 21:19 UTC

Wrong, try 40+. Your assumptions about what Windows can and can't do seems to be based soley on the fact that you don't know how to set up and run a Windows box properly. Of course, I don't fault you for that, as I really couldn't do any better in Linux either.

Geeze than Windows is much harder than Linux!

I am not system administrator but have an above-average knowledge of setting up IIS, creating a network in any Windows Machine. Installing driver and other baby-stuff.
Also of programming:
For the Desktop: Win32/MFC/ActiveX/
For servers: .NET/transact-SQL/ASP/COM+
For IE hacks: DHTML/VML/WSO and FSO
For Office: I can automate any Microsoft Application via its Object Model.

I can only be jinxed then! ..

Before I would have my firewall on - would refrain from using IE - would have the basic knowledge of not doing stupid things like opening attachments but manually downloading those late coming Windows Update.

I only saw the system degrade more and more. Lost expensive work and time. Had important files corrupted. Lent my laptop to my sister only to get it back infected. So I was told that on top of having a 3rd party firewall installed - I am the culprit for not wanting to invest on Norton Anti Virus. My fault damn it!

Sure - spend spend spend. $350 for MS Office Pro (after all needed Access) .. then VS.NET .. then $400 for a RAM upgrade - surprise I need more RAM to run VS.NET (strange version 1 was ok - why version 2 needs that now?).
That was just the beggining of the expenditure madness

I was just a sucker like many are - still spending more and more hardly getting anything back - but redundancies.

What of companies then?

I was jinxed! Can only be.

Since as you say - Windows XP can go running perfectly for over 3 years (without reinstallation) running absolutely perfect without a crash - with 40+ application.

Man why did the Gods suddenly decide to pick on me of all people??? (and many of my friends too)

Well look at the karma - I am anything but jinxed with Linux.

I find it a perfectably enjoyable+relaxing+peaceful experience - and fun - and very educational too.

Linux - a technology that won't suddenly go obsolete tomorrow.

-> Unless Microsoft have its way of course (and God aren't they trying?) then yeah we would be pretty jinxed.

What would i know?
Depends how you want to interpret this:

http://www.microsoft.com/careers/international/default.asp?lang=EN&...


Thanks for the reply, but here is my problem, how about addressing the WHOLE reply, not just quoting things out of context.

Apple Mac is a replacement for the x86, there for it is an alternative, just as Marinda Orange soft drink is a replacement for Coca Cola, it may not be a similar product like Pepsi, but it is an alternative/replacement for Coca Cola none the less.

If you don't like the deal of Apple Mac loaded with MacOS, then purchase a Dell, HP, eMachines or some machine from a white box vendor loaded with Windows.

Oh, and btw, the exclusive contracts for Windows IS an abuse of their monopoly. It isn't just a clear cut offer of, "oh, if you don't exclusively offer Windows, we won't offer you an incredible discount", it was "if you don't offer Windows exclusively, say good by to your OEM license".

There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. The first is a sweetner, the second is an ultimatium, an abuse of their dominance in the market place.

It has been proven illegal already, if you've failed to take notice, Visa and Mastercard have already been raked over the knuckles for that; using their duopoly in the marketplace to inhibit Discover and American Express to enter the market place; they did this by only allowing the banks to offer either Mastercard or Visa, if they chose to offer AMEX or discovery, the couldn't offere Visa or AMEX; which is anti-competitive, ergo, it is illegal.

As for those who whinge about Microsoft dominance now, there were alternatives, Atari, Amiga, Amstrad, BBC (the RISC/StrongARM versions), but the marketplace decided to go with Microsoft. Those who are whinging about Microsoft NOW only have themselves to blame.

YOU the customer made Microsoft, the beast that you hate, you have no one else to blame apart from yourself. I'm happy to say, I didn't contribute to the Microsoft behemoth, I purchase an Amiga 500, then an Amiga 1200. It wasn't until 1996 when I purchase a PC.

Oh, and for the record, moving from the Amiga 1200 to a PC, I was greatly disappointed, I was expecting something that was miles a head of my Amiga 1200, but was surprised to find myself constantly turning back to using my Amiga at times.

drsmithy:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:18 UTC

Outlook's OK, but does it have indexed searching yet? Frankly, my favourite thing about Evolution is being able to search a couple of hundred thousand messages from a search box at the top of the folder, in seconds. BTW, my question was a genuine one, I only have Outlook 2000 here at work so I don't know if they've implemented it since. Apart from that I still like Evo more, but only in little ways (its interface makes more sense to me, I like the way it handles attachments better, vfolders are great.)

BTW, I wasn't completely aware you agreed with me that the PC's foundation was in business, glad we got that cleared up ;) . In that case I think we pretty much agree on that issue.

darius:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:32 UTC

trillian and nero have both acquired the same problem lately - they're getting hideously bloaty. I rather like Trillian but it's pretty ugly by default (why so many apps think *they* are the super special app which is allowed to look completely different from the standard desktop, I don't know - can't the Trillian devs take a hint from the fact that the 'standard Windows' skins are the most popular downloads for it?!) and the preferences are just a joke these days, there's more options even than a KDE app. Gaim is a lot simpler and cleaner. Trillian does still beat gaim in some areas, I prefer gaim, but I wouldn't say it's clear-cut. Nero used to be a wonderful app but absolutely nothing useful has been added to it in several revisions while a lot of useless crap that clutters up the interface and slows the whole app down *has*. When it was just a CD burner with all the options you needed to burn CDs and nothing more, it was great. The way it is now is nasty. k3b is rather like Nero used to be, it's a CD burning app with everything you need and nothing you don't. k3b vs. any roughly one or two year old version of Nero would be a tie, IMO. I don't think you can still *BUY* old versions of Nero, though, such is the march of progress. Sigh.

morin:
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:40 UTC

Except some people buy Bugs and some people (for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me, but must be to them) buy Hummers. Would either set of people be happy if the only car available was a family sedan?

what if?
by M$ guy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:43 UTC

I wonder what innovations would be or not be without M$ bill and company? Or what innovation would be or not be with CPM?

anonymous
by AdamW on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:45 UTC

Microsoft Ireland isn't a marketing shop, it's Microsoft's European distribution arm. It's based in Ireland because they hardly have to pay any tax there. Anyone in Europe who gets sent stuff by Microsoft will tell you it's shipped from Ireland. The Microsoft arms in other European countries - Microsoft U.K., etc - are basically marketing shops.

Re: AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.---)
by drsmithy on Thu 16th Dec 2004 22:50 UTC

Outlook's OK, but does it have indexed searching yet?

Yes, although the indexes are created and maintained on the Exchange server side (they also allow searching within document attachments, which is nice). So, as I said, it's really only an equivalent in an Exchange environment (Outlook as a standalone email client isn't very good, particularly with IMAP).

BTW, my question was a genuine one, I only have Outlook 2000 here at work so I don't know if they've implemented it since.

I believe it's dependent on both client and server supporting it. We've recently rolled out Exchange 2003+Outlook 2003 here so I've little experience with using Outlook as a standalone mail client (and most of that has been bad).

Apart from that I still like Evo more, but only in little ways (its interface makes more sense to me, I like the way it handles attachments better, vfolders are great.)

Outlook 2003 finally has equivalent functionality to vfolders (which really are a killer feature). Again, though, it's dependent on being in an Exchange environment.

As I've said elsewhere, I really like Evolution, I think it's one of the best OSS applications available (even if the design is largely just a copy of Outlook ;) . Up until we started our Exchange pilot program ~6 months ago, I was using Evolution off of one of the Linux servers for all my mail.

@AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.---)
by Morin on Thu 16th Dec 2004 23:24 UTC

> Except some people buy Bugs and some people (for reasons
> that are not immediately apparent to me, but must be to
> them) buy Hummers. Would either set of people be happy if
> the only car available was a family sedan?

Hm, I think you stress the analogy a bit too far. Saying there is "only a family sedan" is like saying "there is only a desktop OS and it must be used for embedded systems and servers too".

I think having Windows and Linux and MacOS is more like having Ford and Toyota and Mercedes. That is, competitors in the same category. If there was only one car company in your category, you'd miss innovation and cheap prices, but not the diversity itself. Same for OSes.

Re: The MESMERIC and AdamW
by Darius on Thu 16th Dec 2004 23:40 UTC


The MESMERIC

Geeze than Windows is much harder than Linux!

Harder in some ways, easier in others. It's actually pretty easy to keep Windows stable and secure. Of course, you will never believe that .. you can't, because it's against your religion.

So I was told that on top of having a 3rd party firewall installed - I am the culprit for not wanting to invest on Norton Anti Virus. My fault damn it!

Anti-virus programs are freely available, as are firewalls. In fact, between AVG, Sygate (and other free firewalls), Spybot, etc, there's really not any need to pay for any security software if you don't want to.

Sure - spend spend spend. $350 for MS Office Pro (after all needed Access) .. then VS.NET .. then $400 for a RAM upgrade - surprise I need more RAM to run VS.NET (strange version 1 was ok - why version 2 needs that now?).

Right, and how much RAM to you need to run, for example, the latest version of Eclipse on Linux?

Since as you say - Windows XP can go running perfectly for over 3 years (without reinstallation) running absolutely perfect without a crash - with 40+ application.

Yes, it ran for 3 years without a crash running 40+ apps, but I didn't say without a reinstallation. Actually, I've reinstalled it several times - never because I had to. I've honestly never tried running it that long. I did run a Win2k install at work for 2 years )(on a P3 700 w/128MB RAM, later upgraded to 256) with almost the same number apps, running 8 hours a day. Never once crashed, but I did have to reboot it every couple of weeks because Win2k has a habit of slowly leaking memory so after awhile, you find that you should have about 50-60MB more RAM free than you actually do. The only reason I only went 2 years on this Win2k machine is that they gave me a new machine. I've been running Win2k on that machine since April without a single problem.

Man why did the Gods suddenly decide to pick on me of all people??? (and many of my friends too)

Probably because you have this mentality before you install it that something bad is going to happen, and so it does. Just like with anything else, if you look at something and project nothing but negativity, that's exactly what you are going to get.

AdamW
Nero used to be a wonderful app but absolutely nothing useful has been added to it in several revisions while a lot of useless crap that clutters up the interface and slows the whole app down *has*.

Ever try Nero Recode? I consider that app to be pretty damn useful myself ;) Anyway, when you talk about apps with extra frills, weren't you the one praising Konquerer earlier because it had a built-in terminal emulator? What kind of need is that for a file manager?

Microsoft Did NOT Popularize the Internet
by Dave on Fri 17th Dec 2004 00:07 UTC

I was with you until you said Microsoft contributed to the popularity of the Internet. That's backwards. The Internet would have taken off regardless of what OS was dominant, or even if none were. The internet contributed to Microsoft by inspiring the sale of more computers. Microsoft on computers did not inspire the internet.

@Darius and drsmithy
by AussieGuy on Fri 17th Dec 2004 01:18 UTC

[QUOTE]Yes, it ran for 3 years without a crash running 40+ apps, but I didn't say without a reinstallation.[/QUOTE]

I hate and mean HATE the M$ reinstall mentality, I have never reinstalled UNIX (TRU64 at the moment), could you imagine a 24x7 shop having an error and the tech going "you'll have to reinstall the OS", this is totally unexceptable. I have a games machine at home that runs XP and I have never had to reinstall the OS in the last 2 years, I've spent sometime pruning the registry after removing games and installing new hardware, but never the OS. If anybody tells me to reinstall the OS, I just ignore them because they have NFI.

[QUOTE]As I've said elsewhere, I really like Evolution, I think it's one of the best OSS applications available (even if the design is largely just a copy of Outlook ;) .[/QUOTE]

The only thing unique about outlook was its swanky menu, it now looks like all those mail clients that existed long before Outlook was purchased by M$. There is nothing revolutionary about this mail client, that wasn't already implimented by companies like Pegasus or Eudora previously. As a PIM it has some unique qualities but as a mail client is just another follower.

Re: AussieGuy (IP: ---.246.47.203.in-addr.arpa)
by drsmithy on Fri 17th Dec 2004 01:30 UTC

The only thing unique about outlook was its swanky menu, it now looks like all those mail clients that existed long before Outlook was purchased by M$. There is nothing revolutionary about this mail client, that wasn't already implimented by companies like Pegasus or Eudora previously. As a PIM it has some unique qualities but as a mail client is just another follower.

I was referring to the PIM aspect. Evolution is fundamentally a copy of Outlook.

MESMERIC
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 01:36 UTC

That MESMERIC guy reminds me of this:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2384

@drsmithy
by AussieGuy on Fri 17th Dec 2004 01:38 UTC

I was referring to the PIM aspect. Evolution is fundamentally a copy of Outlook.

Funny that, it was writtem primarily to be a linux replacement of Outlook, complete with Exchange connector. But yes I would have to agree the PIM functions are very close, but then the question begs, which PIMS do things differently?

v *snicker*
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 01:45 UTC
@Darius
by The MESMERIC on Fri 17th Dec 2004 02:59 UTC

"Probably because you have this mentality before you install it that something bad is going to happen, and so it does."

Wrong Darius.
I didn't even know Linux existed for a very long time.
And it was like this - one day I vowed I would never touch a PC again - I dunno jump into music, travel the world, go wave-surfing.
And then I see an advertisment of Red Hat Linux 9 on the time for $30 very cheap.

I thought what do I have to lose - I was about to give my PC away in any case. So I've ordered that Red Hat Linux -
noone persuaded me or convinced me to do that- it was like a last experiement I guess. And I retained the computer, then discovering other distros/window managers/customizations and hacks and it has been a learning enjoyable experience since.

I am not a pessimist - cheering or hoping to have an installation go wrong - come on! My arse was on the line. I wasn't even aware of any anti-MS propaganda. In fact I was curious - Wow is there *another* operating system then?

Noone "converted" me.
Nor do I want to "convert" anyone.

But Linux is under attack again and again that is my point. It's very difficult to remain at peace knowing my fun can end tomorrow. By a greedy and evil corporation - that never done anything anyway but stolen ideas or shut down competitors.

As to Eclipse - I am sure 128 Mb RAM is just fine.
VS.NET 2003 - at least 256 Mb and it still crawls

Enterprise Manager another thing that crawls badly.

Eclipse = Free too.

I did not know at the time there were "free" anti virus solutions (are they powerful enough as well?). Now why is it MS doesn't ship that with the OS?

By the way watchout with your reinstallations - you will get a nasty surprise when you find out you can't reactivate it anymore.

But I guess most of Windows users don't have legit software installed in any case ;)

40+ application
you are either a millionaire
they were all shareware
or they are all but pirate copies - nice one.

MESMERIC
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:09 UTC
Similiar Experience
by Wildcorn on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:23 UTC

Mesmoric, your experience with windows was very similar to mine.

For a couple of weeks time I was having so much trouble getting windows to work on my computer.

I installed Win98 twice, each installation died within a week (became non-bootable)

Win 2000 wouldn't even install, I even tried a barebones installation

WinXP installed, but died (became non-bootable) after I installed the first application and restarted.

We'll since this had taken up about 2 weeks of my time, I vowed I would find an alternative or swear off computers. I found slackware Linux, and everything has been golden since.

@darius:
by AdamW on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:36 UTC

No, I wasn't the one praising konqueror. I use GNOME. ;)

@Darius
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:36 UTC

There's a little app called Directory Opus v8

Tried it - Konq is, in my humble opinion, a superior application (though Directory Opus is miles ahead of Explorer, for sure). One thing I forgot to mention in Konqueror is the power of service menus - basically they're customizable context menus for various file types. You want to rotate a picture, or convert it from jpeg or png? If you've installed the right service menu, just right-click on the image icon/thumbnail and select the appropriate menu item. Service menus are easy to create, so one can customize their own.

Oh, and having a command line in the browser may seem "linuxy", but in fact it's very useful - I'd love to have that feature with Windows/Internet Explorer.

've also heard people say that K3b is better than Nero, but have never heard why?

The interface. It's both simple to use, beautiful to look at, and powerful. It really is a gem of a program.

drsmithy:
by AdamW on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:39 UTC

Oh, btw, I'd say Evo was more of an Outlook clone up to v1.4 or so - it really *did* look practically identical then. It's diverging a little now, thanks to simplification of some aspects, removing the summary page, trying to follow the HIG, etc.

The Exchange / Outlook combination can have some nice benefits for sure, but it's a classic Microsoft 'lock-in' model, which I don't like. I'm not qualified to comment on what a good equivalent open-standards setup would be, though (mail servers make my head hurt).

@drsmithy
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 03:43 UTC

Again, the biggest problem is that you're trying to use Windows the same way you use Linux and KDE.

Well, I know that you're alway looking to start long-winded discussions where you want to have the last word, unfortunately I don't have time for that now. However, I will say that the original question was what power-users like better about Linux than Windows. So, yes, in fact to me Linux is better than Windows because Windows cannot be used like I use Linux/KDE. In other words, thanks for proving my point.

Again, a restriction of "out of the box" when talking about _power users_ is ridiculous.

No it isn't, because often in Windows you are not allowed to install additional stuff if you don't have Admin rights, which I don't at my place of work (even though some programs, such as FireFox, can still be installed). So to me the fact that Directory Opus is a great replacement for Explorer is moot, because I can't install it on the Windows computer I use the most.

Which important files ?

Oh, I don't know, anything in C:WINNT?

No, you're not. You're talking about using it as a server. By definition.

A server/client desktop. Why must you be so nitpicky? That's really annoying.

ZIP: Yes. TAR: No.

Funny, when I double click a zip file in Explorer it starts up Winzip (and, if Winzip isn't installed, I can't do anything).

@Darius
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 04:04 UTC

Anyway, when you talk about apps with extra frills, weren't you the one praising Konquerer earlier because it had a built-in terminal emulator? What kind of need is that for a file manager?

No, that was me. And Konq isn't just a file manager, it's a browser, in the largest sense of the word. You can browse files, web pages, devices, man pages, news, pop3 and imap folders, etc.

And a terminal emulator is very useful when you want to try something out of a web page without having to toggle between two windows, or re-arrange them so that they're both visible at the same time. I also like to browse a ftp repository in the main window, listing it in detailed mode sorted from most recent to oldest, and use command-line urpmi to install the packages I want (it's faster than the urpmi GUI frontend if there's only a few packages I want).

It's the kind of thing you don't realize is that useful until you've actually started using it. But then again I don't expect you to agree, since that would be against your religion... :-)

@The MESMERIC
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 04:08 UTC

But Linux is under attack again and again that is my point. It's very difficult to remain at peace knowing my fun can end tomorrow. By a greedy and evil corporation - that never done anything anyway but stolen ideas or shut down competitors.

Good point. Whenever Linux enthusiasts decry the underhanded tactics used by MS to foster its monopoly, the MS apologists come out of the woodwork to denounce them as "zealots", "fanatics" and so on.

Look, MS is an abusive monopoly who will stop at nothing to get what it wants. It's normal for Linux enthusiasts to cry foul, and to denigrate them when they do is truly despicable. Rather than attack Linux users for speaking out for what they believe in, those who inconditionally defend MS (for free, no less) should rather ask the monopolist to play fair.

Re: A nun, he moos (IP: ---.85-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
by drsmithy on Fri 17th Dec 2004 04:18 UTC


No it isn't, because often in Windows you are not allowed to install additional stuff if you don't have Admin rights, which I don't at my place of work (even though some programs, such as FireFox, can still be installed). So to me the fact that Directory Opus is a great replacement for Explorer is moot, because I can't install it on the Windows computer I use the most.

Of all the things you've managed to come up with so far, this would have to be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've ever seen.

Oh, I don't know, anything in C:WINNT?

Regular users can't delete such files. If they can, your system has been manually and deliberately miconfigured.

Funny, when I double click a zip file in Explorer it starts up Winzip (and, if Winzip isn't installed, I can't do anything).

Ah, I see, you've moved the goalposts yet again. It appears we should we be comparing a version of KDE dating back to 2000.

@drsmithy
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 04:39 UTC

Of all the things you've managed to come up with so far, this would have to be one of the most ridiculous justifications I've ever seen.

It is not ridiculous, it is exactly the situation I find myself in. Out of the box, Linux gives me all the tools I need and I appreciate this as a power user. I can't say the same thing for Windows.

Now if you would only come down from your high horse and stop being such a condescending prick, we could have a real discussion about real-world situations. But I doubt this will ever happen, as you've shown time and again that you are a contrarian whose only purpose on this site, it seems, is to start flamewars.

Regular users can't delete such files. If they can, your system has been manually and deliberately miconfigured.

I'm talking basic Windows 2000 configuration, here. And IIRC, it was a problem with the first version of Windows XP as well. Meanwhile, ordinary users on a *nix system have never been able to delete important system files by mistake.

Ah, I see, you've moved the goalposts yet again. It appears we should we be comparing a version of KDE dating back to 2000.

I installed WinXP on a friend's computer recently, and double-clicking on zip file didn't do nothing. But don't let facts get in the way of your addiction to incessant bickering.

@ A nun, he moos
by helf on Fri 17th Dec 2004 04:52 UTC

Every system with XP installed I have ever used has been able to open zip files as if they were normal folders. Either that zip you tried wasnt a standard zip file or xp was fscked up ;)

stunned by wild claims!
by Hal on Fri 17th Dec 2004 05:08 UTC

"Tried it - Konq is, in my humble opinion, a superior application (though Directory Opus is miles ahead of Explorer, for sure). One thing I forgot to mention in Konqueror is the power of service menus - basically they're customizable context menus for various file types. You want to rotate a picture, or convert it from jpeg or png? If you've installed the right service menu, just right-click on the image icon/thumbnail and select the appropriate menu item. Service menus are easy to create, so one can customize their own"

Just what did you do with Dopus v8? You must have just installed it, looked at it and went no further. Dopus can do everything you mention above and a lot more! In fact every single thing you mention above is already in the Dopus v8 menus, plus a host of others can easily be configured!

Now I will admit that on first site Dopus can seem to overwhelm, however please don't claim things about an application when it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Your own words speak volumes. In fact they make me wonder if you have even installed and used Dopus. Perhaps you looked at it's default configuration to mimic explorer and that was is. Did you even look at the other setups, the tons of bells an whistles, the other configuration layouts, the prefs? Anything? I really don't think that you did! I've used them both and Dopus is far superior to Konqurer. :/

@ A nun, he moos
by Darius on Fri 17th Dec 2004 05:08 UTC

[quote]One thing I forgot to mention in Konqueror is the power of service menus - basically they're customizable context menus for various file types. You want to rotate a picture, or convert it from jpeg or png? If you've installed the right service menu, just right-click on the image icon/thumbnail and select the appropriate menu item. Service menus are easy to create, so one can customize their own.[/quote]

This doesn't sound like anything you can't do in Dopus. It has image manipulation tools built right in, and menus/toolbars/whatever can be customized/added to by alt-clicking on them and building them sort of like a VB app. All of the commands are made from a scripting language, and you can customize any menu in the program. Hell, even the status bar is customizable so you can add a lot of info about the files down there.
Dopus does FTP and has support for compressed files, but no web browser. Hell, I didn't even use that feature in Explorer. It seemed a bit more handy in Konquerer, but considering the app was missing a List icon view and was slower than snot on a doorknob, Not only that, but the browser was only half-assed (at least compared to Gecko and Opera anyway). I usually found myself just dropping to a command-line when I needed to work with files because the file managers (both Konquerer and Bloatilus) were so frustrating to deal with.
Of course, I haven't used Konq much since around KDE 3.1, so can't really comment on its current incarnation, but I don't recall being impressed with it at all.

BTW: XP does to zip natively, unless you disable it (one of those handy tweaks most people don't know about.)

@ A nun, he moos part Deux
by Darius on Fri 17th Dec 2004 05:25 UTC

Good point. Whenever Linux enthusiasts decry the underhanded tactics used by MS to foster its monopoly, the MS apologists come out of the woodwork to denounce them as "zealots", "fanatics" and so on.

I can't speak for everyone, but I normally don't go after them until they say something really stupid, and that happens quite a bit ;) Not only that, but since most of us don't care about religion, it's also very annoying to hear them go through the same talking points over and over and over ...

Look, MS is an abusive monopoly who will stop at nothing to get what it wants.

Welcome to Corporate America, my friend.

It's normal for Linux enthusiasts to cry foul, and to denigrate them when they do is truly despicable.

I don't really care what they say about MS. Hell, I even agree with them most of the time. But when they say stupid shit like it is impossible to secure a Windows box, that is when I give them a hard time, especially when they start hurling insults at people like me, as if I am just another sheep who is incapable of making intelligent decisions about the operating system I use. Basically, it's the 'my dick is bigger than yours' mentality that a lot of Linux users have.

Rather than attack Linux users for speaking out for what they believe in, those who inconditionally defend MS (for free, no less) should rather ask the monopolist to play fair.

Well, for better or worse, corporations are in it to make money and don't play fair. I've said before, when dealing with some money hungry corporation, whether or not you boycott them depends on how convenient it is for you. For example, I use MS products, but don't buy CDs and don't subscribe to cable for the same political reasons that many people don't use MS products. When it comes to idealists, we all must choose our battles.

darius:
by AdamW on Fri 17th Dec 2004 05:53 UTC

actually, choosing your battles would make you a pragmatist. *not* choosing your battles would make you an idealist. ;)

helf, Hal, Darius
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 06:46 UTC

Every system with XP installed I have ever used has been able to open zip files as if they were normal folders.

Well, now that you mention it, I didn't bother to check if XP opened zips when I installed it, I instinctively installed Winzip. Unfortunately, like many corporate Windows users in North America, I'm still on Windows 2000. I'm happy to learn that WinXP opens zips natively by default, I can't wait to upgrade at work.

Now, Explorer still sucks next to Konq and Directory Opus.

Just what did you do with Dopus v8? You must have just installed it, looked at it and went no further. Dopus can do everything you mention above and a lot more! In fact every single thing you mention above is already in the Dopus v8 menus, plus a host of others can easily be configured!

You're right, I only played around.

Now I will admit that on first site Dopus can seem to overwhelm, however please don't claim things about an application when it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

I did find the UI a bit overwhelming (another good point for Konq), but let me correct you right away: I NEVER claimed that Directory Opus didn't do any of those things. Re-read what I wrote carefully:

"Tried it - Konq is, in my humble opinion, a superior application (though Directory Opus is miles ahead of Explorer, for sure). One thing I forgot to mention in Konqueror is the power of service menus

I wasn't saying that Dopus didn't have the equivalent functions, I just remembered that as one of the other reasons I preferred Konqueror over the basic Windows file explorer. If I could install Dopus at work, believe me, I would, but I can't. I wasn't claiming that Dopus couldn't do image manipulation (I know it is one of the big selling point). My train of thought simply went from one idea to the next, and I'm sorry if it came across wrong.

Your own words speak volumes. In fact they make me wonder if you have even installed and used Dopus.

Now, now, I never have claimed to have installed Dopus. Stop putting words into my mouth. I said that I tried it. For what it's worth, I prefer Konqueror, its UI and versatility and it does stuff that I need that Dopus don't (notably the fish:/ protocol). Also, I don't believe that Dopus can act as a web browser, can it?

Konq and Dopus are two very good apps. I prefer Konq, you prefer Dopus, let's leave it at that.

Welcome to Corporate America, my friend.

Corporate America doesn't mean lawlessness. See Enron, Worldcom, etc.

I live in Corporate America. It feeds me. Because of that I understand that rules and regulations are necessary to counter the basic defects of the corporate world, such as monopolies.

But when they say stupid shit like it is impossible to secure a Windows box, that is when I give them a hard time, especially when they start hurling insults at people like me, as if I am just another sheep who is incapable of making intelligent decisions about the operating system I use. Basically, it's the 'my dick is bigger than yours' mentality that a lot of Linux users have.

Darius, there are trolls on both sides. There are at least as many on the Windows side as the Linux side. Both are idiots, except that one of the groups is basically doing the richest's corporation in the world's PR for them.

Now, I and many other Linux advocates on this thread - the majority I believe, have not said that it's impossible to secure a Windows box. And as far as insults go, take a look at the moderated comments on this site: most of them are from anti-Linux posters (some even made racist remarks in a recent thread). It does seem to me that you are a little biases in your appraisal of the situation.

Meanwhile, I do buy CDs and have cable... :-)

How About Microsoft Thanking Tax Payers?
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 07:35 UTC

"Shouldn't Microsoft be the one thanking its tax payers?"

Its tax payers? How in the heck does Microsoft collect taxes?!?

v Interesting responses
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 07:41 UTC
v Funny
by Wolf on Fri 17th Dec 2004 07:48 UTC

Man you should get a job at Microsoft because it seems like they always use people with opinion like yours for tehir propaganda.

First of all let me get some things straight. People that know Microsoft well enough do not hate the company for fun but because of their really nasty bussiness strategy. Over the years that have constantly devoured small companies that had the potential to become competition for some of their products. They certainly have the right to do so but that doesn not make then *god's gift* by any standart. Microsoft has fought with teeth and claws to keep their position as a leading provider of software.

My biggest problem with your article is that you seem to not understand that if Microsoft hadn't come along then there would have been some other company that would take their place and maybe do a better job. The reason why microsoft filled the void is that they were the first company to start selling OS without hardware and then they did everything possible to be the only company providiang software. Of cource that is up untill recently with the appearance of OSS.

No the other thing that you are mistaken about are OSS projects like GNOME and KDE. They work and look somewhat like Windows not because they needed to borrow the ideas from windows due to lack of their own ideas but because people are used to a certain way of doing things and the easiest way to convince them to switch is to offer something that is simmilar to what they are used to. I agree that some thing found in windows are probably the best approach available given a 2d desktop but those same ideas are found in many other OSes so your argument is really weak here.

You also apparently do not know that just before the release of windows 1.0 Microsoft was working with IBM on the development of OS2 and all of a sudden they decided to leave the group and start their own OS *borrowing* a lot of ideas and taking all the stuff that they have written with them. This is not that big of a deal if it was a once in a life time occurance for the company but bad decissions build up over time and they win a lot of bad reputaion for MS.

The best thing that MS has ever done to me is the introduction of MS Office and the introduction of the MS SDK. Those were the only trully inovative ideas to come from them and they are worth a lot more fame then they receive.

As far as security and windows goes I doubt it that the situation will ever improve. MS has the practice of fixing problems the cheapest possible way and cheapness started catching up with them. Also they tend to overuse ideas and this is really bad too. Especially when you are a company with a huge programmer base. One example of overusing ideas (really recent one) is DirectX and Xbox. I can't wait untill the new xbox has to compeate with playstation 3. But that's just my opinion.

Also when you talk about OSS project being dependant on MS keep in mind that the driving ideas behind the OSS movement are compleatelly different than those behind closed source software. OSS is dependant on big companies of you are talking about money because most programers get paid by companies like MS and work on OSS as a hobby.

In conclusion I would like to say that I don't hate MS but I believe that it is time to add some diversity to the software world and if that means getting rid of MS because they won't allow it or because they can't stauck up to the competition so be it. I am perfectly happy with linux + Gnome/xfce4 even without the game/commercial software support.

Why IBM Could not destroy M$-The reason
by Imanpreet Singh Arora on Fri 17th Dec 2004 10:47 UTC


Here read this, it tells you why IBM could not destroy M$

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/gatesivu.htm


Notable Quote


Q. In your deal with IBM, how much of a key was non-exclusivity-permitting you to sell DOS to other computer makers?
We knew there'd be clones. We had to decide what the seed corn for 16-bit personal computing would be. It made sense for IBM to be the seed corn, because they were not doing it in a way that would prevent other people from building compatible machines. The notion that we were going to license clones was an explicit part of the discussion, which they pushed us on. They said, no, why can't we license and just pay you an additional fee whenever we license a clone? And we said, no way.



Also on another interesting thing it notes is this..



Our whole role was to provide the standard operating system so the software industry was hardware independent. You had to have pure hardware competition that was orthogonal from software innovation, so that people could do new models of hardware and applications guys didn't have to rev [do an upgrade] for every new piece of hardware.


Mail:imanpreet@mailg.co.uk
It's gmail.com

What I don't like
by Hagge on Fri 17th Dec 2004 10:55 UTC

A PC on every desktop is the thing which makes me hate Microsoft, that and that all the PCs run their bloody OS.

A nun, he moos<
by Darius on Fri 17th Dec 2004 14:21 UTC

I live in Corporate America. It feeds me. Because of that I understand that rules and regulations are necessary to counter the basic defects of the corporate world, such as monopolies.

Yeah, so a few get prosecuted. But, you know what they say .. Corporate criminals are kind of like roaches in your house. If you happen to spot a few out in the open, it's because there's a ton of them in your walls and a few of them just got 'exposed' because of overcrowding.

Darius, there are trolls on both sides. There are at least as many on the Windows side as the Linux side. Both are idiots, except that one of the groups is basically doing the richest's corporation in the world's PR for them.

Actually, I think it is the Linux zealots who do most of the PR for Microsoft. Hell, they probably turn more people away from Linux than does XF86Config ;)
Anyway, I know there are trolls on both sides and you know that as well, so stop pretending like the Linux trolls are the 'innocent victims' here.

Meanwhile, I do buy CDs and have cable... :-)

In other words, you decry one criminal corporation while supporting others at the same time. That would make you a hypocrite. Of course, that doesn't make you any different than me, so don't take that remark personally. If I were to give up MS products, I would have to find a new job because if I were giving that up for ethical reasons, then I could no longer justify using it at work either. (Yeah, I say if you're going to be an idealist, you either need to shit or get off the pot.) In other words, me abandoning Windows would be a major, life altering, pain in the ass thing to do. Not only because of the job situation, but because of the handful of apps I would lose that are very important to me. The only thing I had to do to give up CDs and cable was to tell the RIAA and Time Warner to go screw themselves ;) As I said, it's all a matter of convenience - we all have to pick our battles.

You also apparently do not know that just before the release of windows 1.0 Microsoft was working with IBM on the development of OS2 and all of a sudden they decided to leave the group and start their own OS *borrowing* a lot of ideas and taking all the stuff that they have written with them. This is not that big of a deal if it was a once in a life time occurance for the company but bad decissions build up over time and they win a lot of bad reputaion for MS.

And apparently you do not know that MS was working on windows while also working with IBM on OS/2. Windows 3.x came out while they were still working with ibm. I forget exactly when their partnership died though.

Re: Interesting responses
by Rich Steiner on Fri 17th Dec 2004 16:20 UTC

Microsoft *does* have positive qualities, as do most of the individual software products that they've produced over the years.

The problem with many of the comments made here is that they are sometimes either substantially incorrect (often either ignoring or reinterpreting history), or they make a number of assumptions which are arguably incorrect given a certain amount of exposure to other areas of the computer industry (or exposure to other platforms).

While there is some truth to the fact that a single unifying platform provides substantial benefits, I believe there are also a number of inherent risks present when one chooses to adopt a software monoculture.

While many of Microsoft's products are "enabling" and allow users to perform sophisticated operations relatively easily, that power is often tied to assumptions about the security of the computing environment which are often no longer true in today's connected computing world.

The software market can be a strange place even when it is "healthy".

Right now, however, it seems that in many areas of the desktop software space there *is* no longer a software market in the traditional sense.

Instead, we have an incumbent monopolist (Microsoft) with an increasingly dominant position on the one hand, and we have a steadily increasing level of open source software development (which is largely occurring outside the marketplace) on the other.

I'll leave it to others to determine if this is a good thing or not, since I think arguments could be made both ways.

@Darius
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 17:29 UTC

Corporate criminals are kind of like roaches in your house. If you happen to spot a few out in the open, it's because there's a ton of them in your walls and a few of them just got 'exposed' because of overcrowding.

That doesn't make it okay. You're basically saying that, because it happens all the time, we shouldn't denounce it. You're basically condoning apathy.

Actually, I think it is the Linux zealots who do most of the PR for Microsoft. Hell, they probably turn more people away from Linux than does XF86Config ;)

...just like MS zealots reinforce the opinion of those who dislike MS in the first place? (By the way, it's called xorg.conf now...:-)

That said, I do not believe that zealots on either side have a negative effect on users considering to switch. This is a theory that's often touted by those who criticize Linux enthusiasts, but I'll believe it when I read a quote from a CTO that says "we would have gone with Linux, but some of the users are really rude." What do you think would happen to a CTO that would make a strategic decision on such an irrelevant observation? He'd get fired in a minute...

In fact, I'm pretty certain that the effect of flamewars on market share is very close to nil. Flamewars happen all the time in other areas (game consoles comes to mind), and yet you'll never see that as an argument against buying a console over another. You buy what best suits you, period - who cares about the Linux zealots or the MS trolls? So I think you should stop repeating that myth unless you have hard data to back it up (and saying "well, they've turned ME off of Linux" is worthless anectodal evidence, sorry).

Anyway, I know there are trolls on both sides and you know that as well, so stop pretending like the Linux trolls are the 'innocent victims' here.

Please don't put words into my mouth. This is what I said: "There are at least as many on the Windows side as the Linux side. Both are idiots, except that one of the groups is basically doing the richest's corporation in the world's PR for them."

I never claimed that Linux trolls are innocent victims. A little intellectual honesty, please! I stand by what I said: trolls on both sides of the fence are idiots, but at least the Linux trolls are defending a community of programmers and users, while MS trolls are defending the world's biggest company per market cap (well, it may not be number one anymore, but it's up there).

In other words, you decry one criminal corporation while supporting others at the same time. That would make you a hypocrite.

Darius, the problem with your posts is that you assume too many things. Not all CDs are published by "criminal corporations" - I by mostly from independant labels, as well as local stuff (I'm in Canada). And while I disagree with the approach that the recording industry has taken towards file-sharing, it is a fact that artists' copyrights are being violated daily. Now, I believe there is a middle ground between what the RIAA/MPAA are advocating, and the complete lawlessness of music sharers. However, the situation is quite different from MS, so the analogy is faulty.

As far as cable is concerned, I'm not sure what your issue is. Then again, maybe it's something that's specific to US cable companies.

If I were to give up MS products, I would have to find a new job because if I were giving that up for ethical reasons, then I could no longer justify using it at work either. (Yeah, I say if you're going to be an idealist, you either need to shit or get off the pot.) In other words, me abandoning Windows would be a major, life altering, pain in the ass thing to do.

Now, there is a difference between advocating the use of Linux and saying that people should abandon MS altogether. Hey, I still use MS Office even though I'm on Linux. I'm not an idealist, I'm a pragmatist with long-term vision. And to me, in the long-term, an abusive MS monopoly is not good for anyone but Microsoft. However, that doesn't mean that MS should be eradicated - I just think it should no longer be a monopoly. I'm all for a diverse OS ecosystem, where no player has more than 30% of the market.

Not only because of the job situation, but because of the handful of apps I would lose that are very important to me.

Well, you know, apps come and go. Two years ago there were no professional-level audio and video apps for Linux, now there's a lot of such projects quickly gaining maturity. However, you're missing the point. No one but trolls will argue that no one should use Microsoft (or Linux, for that matter). What Linux enthusiasts complain about is Microsoft using dirty tricks to hang on to its monopoly status. We just want them to share the pie with us, and until they do we'll continue to decry it in every way possible. Unfortunately, since MS is not above spreading lies about Linux to protect its monopoly, some Linux users will feel that this allows them to say lies about Windows. I don't agree, however it is unfair to say that only MS is allowed to play dirty. Either neither sides are allowed to use FUD, or both sides are. You don't seem like an unreasonable man (and I can't be mad at someone who has the same name as my godson): can't we at least agree on this?

The only thing I had to do to give up CDs and cable was to tell the RIAA and Time Warner to go screw themselves ;) As I said, it's all a matter of convenience - we all have to pick our battles.

True, however outside of the U.S. the RIAA and cable companies do not have the same kind of clout that MS does.

Windows Easy?
by Anonymous on Fri 17th Dec 2004 18:23 UTC

While many of Microsoft's products are "enabling" and allow users to perform sophisticated operations relatively easily, that power is often tied to assumptions about the security of the computing environment which are often no longer true in today's connected computing world.

The IBM Compats were never known for their ease of use. Look at any old game made for IBM and Atari/Amiga and you notice the trouble shooting is mostly for IBM while the trouble shooting for Atari and Amiga is simply junk like disconnecting exteral drives and rebooting while trouble shooting for DOS was stuff like play with config.sys

Even today MS has failed in making Windows a home OS that is easy to use like Atari and Amiga use to be. You can't just plug your wintel in the wall boot it up and get right to work. If Windows was a true home OS you wouldn't have to learn it as there wouldn't be much to it just like there isn't much for a newbie to learn about Mac OS X unless you want to get your hand dirty.

@A nun, he moos
by Darius on Fri 17th Dec 2004 18:25 UTC

That doesn't make it okay. You're basically saying that, because it happens all the time, we shouldn't denounce it. You're basically condoning apathy.

No, I'm siimply saying that most (if not all) corporations do (or would do) the same kinds of things, even if they don't get caught or convicted. For this reason, there's really no reason to single out Microsoft and pick on them exclusively. Microsoft is really no different than anyone else, they are just a manifestation of a corporation just a little more 'realized' than anything we're used to seeing.

(By the way, it's called xorg.conf now...:-)

Oh, sorry .. I'm behind the times ;)


I never claimed that Linux trolls are innocent victims. A little intellectual honesty, please!

You made it sound like the 'attacks' are completely one-sided. But go to a site such as ZDNet and take a look at almost any Microsoft-related article. Usually in a short amount of time, the Linux jockeys are all over it. Again, I know it works both ways, which was my whole point to begin with.

I said: trolls on both sides of the fence are idiots, but at least the Linux trolls are defending a community of programmers and users, while MS trolls are defending the world's biggest company per market cap.

For all of their wrong doings, I think sometimes they are worth defending. While they should be properly dissed for things they do wrong (such as bullying OEMs to keep competing operating systems off of new computers), I'm not sure if it's really fair to just stand aside and nod in agreement while some anti-MS folks make up all kinds of crazy shit about them that has little-to-no basis in reality whatsoever. One of my favorites is when they accuse MS of artifically bloating their software in order to make Intel happy.

Not all CDs are published by "criminal corporations" - I by mostly from independant labels, as well as local stuff (I'm in Canada).

Sorry, I assumed it was implied that I meant CDs from major music studios.

And while I disagree with the approach that the recording industry has taken towards file-sharing, it is a fact that artists' copyrights are being violated daily.

It is also a fact that people's fair use rights are being violated on a daily basis.

Now, I believe there is a middle ground between what the RIAA/MPAA are advocating, and the complete lawlessness of music sharers.

The middle ground is to boycott all of their products and stop stealing t hem, therefore putting these assholes out of business forever. As far as the MPAA and RIAA are concerned, we just don't need them anymore.

However, the situation is quite different from MS, so the analogy is faulty.

How so?

As far as cable is concerned, I'm not sure what your issue is. Then again, maybe it's something that's specific to US cable companies.

In the US, at least everywhere I've lived, you usually only have one choice for cable, unless you live in a place (ie - not in an apartment) where you can get satellite. Adding to that, the cable companies charge and outrageous amount of money. Anything past basic (which gives you little more than the broadcast channels) is going to run you at least $45 a month. Not only that, but the ones I've had experience with are very dishonest in their dealings.

Now, there is a difference between advocating the use of Linux and saying that people should abandon MS altogether.

I seem to run into the latter much more than the former.

And to me, in the long-term, an abusive MS monopoly is not good for anyone but Microsoft.

So, what do you suppose we do? Drop Windows altogether? I think we've already had that discussion.

However, that doesn't mean that MS should be eradicated - I just think it should no longer be a monopoly. I'm all for a diverse OS ecosystem, where no player has more than 30% of the market.

In other words, you want to turn this into a socialist kind of thing where anybody who gets more than 30% marketshare is disbanded by the government?


Well, you know, apps come and go. Two years ago there were no professional-level audio and video apps for Linux, now there's a lot of such projects quickly gaining maturity.

And you can be sure I'll be watching with much interest. But I'm not going anywhere until these apps are at least as good as, if not better than the ones I'm already using.

What Linux enthusiasts complain about is Microsoft using dirty tricks to hang on to its monopoly status. We just want them to share the pie with us, and until they do we'll continue to decry it in every way possible.

I'm sorry, but they're not going to do that unless forced to. And the only way they'll be forced to is if they are made to do so by the government (fat chance) or else if the competition builds something that is so compelling, people will want to switch. Take Firefox for example - when you build a clearly superior app, people will use it. (It's too bad it took them approx 5 years to build it while MS sat on their laurels, but that is beside the point.)

Either neither sides are allowed to use FUD, or both sides are.

I would tend to agree with this, but I think it is more of an issue with people speaking out of ignorance than purposely spreading FUD. For example, a lot of people say (and something I agree with) is that installing apps in Linux can be a pain in the ass. But some people contend that some/most distros offer 'easy as pie' installation methods so getting the latest version of any app should never be a problem. So, which side is right? Is there a single distro out there that would make installing any app I want a breeze? Something I've thought about doing is to pick 20 Linux apps at random and offer $1,000 to anyone who could point me to a distro that I could install the latest version of all these apps without having to jump through hoops, such as having to hunt for a different repository, compiling from source, etc.

@Darius
by A nun, he moos on Fri 17th Dec 2004 23:46 UTC

No, I'm siimply saying that most (if not all) corporations do (or would do) the same kinds of things, even if they don't get caught or convicted. For this reason, there's really no reason to single out Microsoft and pick on them exclusively. Microsoft is really no different than anyone else, they are just a manifestation of a corporation just a little more 'realized' than anything we're used to seeing.

I disagree - Microsoft isn't just any company, it's a monopoly with a known history of abuse. Throughout history, abusive monopolies have often been legislated against for the good of industry in general. There are lots of reason to pick on MS, because few other companies have such extensive monopolies, and abuse their monopoly power to try to extend it to other areas of business.

Again, I know it works both ways, which was my whole point to begin with.

All right, then let's all agree that trolls are better left ignored, whether they're pro-MS or pro-Linux...

Sorry, I assumed it was implied that I meant CDs from major music studios.

Don't assume too much! :-)

It is also a fact that people's fair use rights are being violated on a daily basis.

Indeed, so we need to find a solution where both copyrights and fair use are respected. My own take: give the virtual, sell the material. Give away the music, but sell nice artifacts (boxed sets, posters, nice books with lyrics, etc.). My favorite example is the special "book" edition of Kid A by Radiohead. I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, and I already had a copy of Kid A, but the book edition was so nice that I bought another copy.

You'll never be able to stop file-sharing, but at the same time it's not possible to easily reproduce nice artifacts. Sure, the profit margins will be lower, and some music industry bigshot will have to revise their standard of living - to which I say: "that's life!"

"However, the situation is quite different from MS, so the analogy is faulty."

How so?


Microsoft controls the OS, which is at the foundation of the computer. The RIAA is powerful, but it doesn't have the same level of control on Music that MS has on Computing, especially if you consider the issue on an international level.

In other words, you want to turn this into a socialist kind of thing where anybody who gets more than 30% marketshare is disbanded by the government?

Of course not. I simply indicated my preference of an ideal situation. Just like if I said "I wish there were less income inequalities in North America", that doesn't mean I'm for robbing the rich.

Although, you must realize that being from Canada, I am a socialist, at least in the eyes of right-wing Americans... :-) For the record, I am a Left Libertarian (see http://www.politicalcompass.org/ for more details).

There are other ways than coercition, such as tax incentives, grants, and other ways to foster competition. Governments opting for open standards and file formats would be a huge step in the right direction.

Actually, MS's monopoly relies on the Office file formats being closed. I would favor the government forcing MS to open up these file formats and presto! the abusive monopoly would be a lot less powerful.

I'm sorry, but they're not going to do that unless forced to. And the only way they'll be forced to is if they are made to do so by the government (fat chance)

I gather you are unfamiliar with America's favorite pasttime, i.e. lawsuits. Monopolies are often the target of lawsuits because they're so rich it makes them appealing targets. Grassroots efforts (look at what the Groklaw people are doing) also helps. The one thing large corporations don't like is bad PR - if they do illegal/unfair things, then it's up to ordinary citizens to decry and denounce it - the resulting bad PR will often be more effective than lawsuits and government intervention.

It does seem as if you're saying that we shouldn't even bother denouncing MS dirty tricks because "it's the nature of business" and "everyone does it"...I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. I will continue to criticize MS, even at the risk of overcrticizing it (hey, they can defend themselves), because I feel it's my duty as a citizen that's concerned about the future of this industry. You can disagree, but so far you've failed to convince me that I should stop doing it...

For example, a lot of people say (and something I agree with) is that installing apps in Linux can be a pain in the ass. But some people contend that some/most distros offer 'easy as pie' installation methods so getting the latest version of any app should never be a problem. So, which side is right? Is there a single distro out there that would make installing any app I want a breeze?

Well, if an app isn't available for a particular distro, then of course installing it is going to be hard - but hey, there are some apps that work well in a certain version of Windows and don't work well with another!

Personally, this is the main reason I use Mandrake (though I hear Debian's pretty good for that as well): their software repository is HUGE. Over the past two years, I can count on one hand the number of apps that I couldn't easily install through urpmi (or rpmdrake, it's GUI front-end). Sometimes, I had to wait a week or two. Very few apps I had to install using ./configure, make, make install, and as it turns out I've never kept any of them because they weren't very good.

If you were to really pick 20 apps at random (not hand-picking them) and asked if I could install them using a single repository (I use ftp.proxad.net exclusively), then you'd quickly be out of $1,000! :-)

Meanwhile, can you point a single place to me where I can get ALL of my Windows apps? If you're going to set the bar that high for Linux, you have to set it just as high for Windows...

Re: A nun, he moos (IP: ---.85-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
by drsmithy on Sat 18th Dec 2004 03:33 UTC

It is not ridiculous, it is exactly the situation I find myself in. Out of the box, Linux gives me all the tools I need and I appreciate this as a power user. I can't say the same thing for Windows.

Talk to your IT department. If they won't let you install stuff on your machine then you shouldn't be doing it under Linux either.

If the software you're trying to install requires elevated privileges to install when it logically shouldn't, that's the software developer's fault.

Now if you would only come down from your high horse and stop being such a condescending prick, we could have a real discussion about real-world situations.

Your real world situations very rarely seem to coincide with the real world.

But I doubt this will ever happen, as you've shown time and again that you are a contrarian whose only purpose on this site, it seems, is to start flamewars.

And you're just here to post crap, then criticise people for being contrary and "having to have the last word" when they disagree.

I'm talking basic Windows 2000 configuration, here. And IIRC, it was a problem with the first version of Windows XP as well.

No, it's wasn't. Nor was it a problem with Windows 2000. Nor was it a problem with Windows NT4. Nor any other version of Windows NT.

The likely explanation is that you've installed to a FAT32 drive, in which case you can hardly blame the OS for not being able to enforce file permissions on a filesystem that doesn't support them.

I installed WinXP on a friend's computer recently, and double-clicking on zip file didn't do nothing. But don't let facts get in the way of your addiction to incessant bickering.

Well, Windows XP has handled ZIP files from day one, so I don't know what's wrong with your friends PC, but it isn't normal behaviour. HOwever, don't lets facts get in the way of your incessant bitching.

Hey, I know, maybe I should grossly misconfigure some Linux machines and bitch about how much Linux sucks based on the things that don't work on them ? Fair ?