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)
Computers have been around for decades now, even centuries, if you include the Abacus, which I imagine, although debatable, could be considered the original computer. The ENIAC was the first electronic computer. Built in the 1940’s, the machine itself was massive and powered by vacuum tubes. It did little more than the Abacus in a sense that it was designed for numerical calculations. At the time it was a great achievement. No one but top military personnel and scientists had access to it. By today’s standards it would be nothing more than a simple calculator. By comparison, today any child can go to the public library and have access to a computer that is thousands of times more powerful.
Unless you have been living behind closed doors and shuttered windows you’ve no doubt seen the articles and debates about the competition between GNU/Linux and the Microsoft Windows Operating System. Which system is better? Both camps claim to have the better OS. This may actually be the truth of the whole matter. No single Operating system is going to be the best fit for all tasks.
I personally am not a Microsoft advocate. I urge people on a daily basis to use alternative Open Source software when I see an opportunity, such as OpenOffice and Firefox. Both of these programs are available on the Windows platform as well as various others. It’s no big deal to install and use Firefox, but trying to get people to abandon their OS in favor of a system they may never have heard of could be like a mission out of a James Bond movie, with more drama than a daytime soap opera. Certain issues that surround Free and Open Source Software must still be evaluated, such as patents and Intellectual Property. These issues cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
However, in all fairness, and to keep history straight, one must acknowledge Microsoft’s contribution to the computing industry. Bill Gates had a goal in mind. That goal was to put a Windows based computer on every desktop. He has, for the most part, succeed in his endeavor. At last count, MS Windows, in some form or another, accounted for more than 90% of the desktop market. This figure is slowly starting to decline as the use and acceptance of the Open Source Operating System GNU/Linux Rises. Microsoft is primarily responsible for the proliferation of a ‘point and click’ computing system built on relatively inexpensive hardware.
It’s not necessarily because Microsoft had a superior product. In the early days, Apple computers were the dominant force in desktop computing. But Apple, like all other computer vendors before, were interested in selling a package of hardware and software. Microsoft’s early position as an OS provider to IBM, and its later decision to focus on software and let commodity hardware vendors fight over ever-decreasing profits from hardware, was the primary factor in driving down the cost of personal computers. Hardware vendors competed on price, but “the PC” was advanced not by this chaotic gaggle of vendors, but my Microsoft, above the fray.
Add to this Microsoft’s formidable marketing ability and ruthless competitive practices, and the Windows platform rose to near absolute dominance in a decade.
Microsoft did not, as we all know, invent computing, but what they did do, as stated earlier, was bring the computer into the home of the average Joe and Jane. It’s ironic how it was Microsoft that made computers affordable and now there’s the whole debate over TCO/ROI (Total cost of ownership/Return on investment) and licensing fees.
The Redmond bunch is always examined under a microscope. Everyone watches, from financial analysts to security experts. They are sometimes portrayed unfairly. For instance, some say that Microsoft “stole” the windowing system from Apple and they will tell you how Apple was able to hire engineers and license technology from Xerox, the originators of the windowing system. In my opinion these are subtle differences. Microsoft may have cribbed ideas from Apple, and may have abused their partnership, but let’s look at the evolution of KDE and GNOME. Didn’t they base their windowing environments, to some extent, on Windows? It must be realized that for the computing industry to continue to grow ideas will forever be appropriated, even in the world of proprietary software.
Today, security is one of the biggest issues concerning computing. With viruses and spyware rampant, security has become big business. When MS was developing Windows not even they could foresee the popularity of the Internet. At the time, the Internet was nothing more than a bunch of message boards. Billions of dollars did not flow over the wires daily. At the time, network security was a minor issue. 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. If not for Microsoft ,thousand of companies might not exist today.
Microsoft did not only develop an OS, they developed some excellent office applications, some of which revolutionized . They delivered some so-called “Killer application” Programs that were specifically designed to fill a void.
A vast number of modern day GNU/Linux and Mac users were introduced to computing through some version of Windows. They used MS products before they converted to their present day OS of choice. Their basic computer skills were honed on a Windows box. If not for that prior introduction, would they now be effective computer users? and if so to what extent?
Linus Torvalds developed the Linux Kernel. It was not very useful by itself. Thanks to input from Open Source developers, The Free Software Foundation, and the GNU Project, Linux evolved into the backbone of the useful, robust system that we have today. But Linux was originally developed as a way to run a Unix-like system on the kind of commodity Intel hardware that was easily available to everyone, thanks in large part to Microsoft. Had their been no widely available, “open” PC standard, Linux would have had no foothold.
If they did not have Windows to compete with, would the Gnu project be as successful as it is? Isn’t competition with Microsoft the primary driving force behind its success? Furthermore, even if the GNU Project was developed to the same level of efficiency as it currently stands, (without the existence of Microsoft) would any GNU/Linux vendor have the ability to produce the marketing power of Microsoft enabling them to bring computing to the masses?
A lot of the desktop versions of GNU/Linux we use today are Microsoft look-a-likes and function similarly to Windows. 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.
Like it or not The Mighty Giant known as Microsoft stood at the foot of the unknown road and blazed a trail. All of the Desktop OSes we have today owe a dept to the present monopolistic, proprietary King of the desktop. Given the fact that MS toppled Apple and squashed IBM’s OS/2 before it even had a chance, no one could say with absolute certainty what desktop computing, the Internet, or the computing industry itself would look like today 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.
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.
I recommend doubling your dose of meds and seeking professional psychiatric help immediately.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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…
“‘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 
.
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 …)
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.
http://www.wastelandranger.org/microshit/whatsbad.html
have fun
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.
May I suggest that we all just ignore any further comments from Mesmerick.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now who is the one avoiding responding to other’s arguments? I’m done with you.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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).
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 didn’t 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. That’s the truth. Even Bill himself said in a book he wrote, “If I didn’t develop Windows someone else would have” 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 won’t happen so let’s 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. It’s a shame too, cuz OS2 was a better OS. You said computers got cheaper. This isn’t due to Microsoft; it’s 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And it’s bad, what if we have had an Amiga instead?
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.
You can’t say anything else…please keep on crying and abusing LMFAO…
[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)
[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
I would have expected an Amiga on every desktop…
But this was held back by the 680×0 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
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.
yeah, Trumpet. worked pretty darn well, actually, I never had a single problem with it.
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.
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…
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).
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.
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.
$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.
>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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Apple the athiest.
Microsoft the satanist.
Linux the purist.
Me, the pessimist.
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!
Me, the dyslectic pessimist
Atheist…. sorry apple!
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good point.
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!
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.
that’s ‘Standard OIL’…lol!
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
> 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.
“Their monopoly breeds a fault-tolerant user base which is largely ignorant of alternatives.”
Bravo.
Couldn’t have stated it better.
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…
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
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…
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I wonder what innovations would be or not be without M$ bill and company? Or what innovation would be or not be with CPM?
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.
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.