when Bill Gates was a kid
Jerry Story
[quote]
The early Gates childhood is best summed up in this excerpt from a
note his second grade teacher wrote to his parents:
Billy has been having some trouble behaving in class lately... Last
Monday he horded all of the crayons and refused to share, saying that
he needed all 160 colors to maximize his 'innovation'. He then
proceeded to sell little pieces of paper ("End-User License Agreement
for Crayons" he called them) granting his classmates the
'non-transferable right' to use the crayons on a limited time basis in
exchange for their lunch money...
When I tried to stop Billy, he kept harping about his right to
innovate and how my interference violated basic notions of free-market
capitalism. "Holding a monopoly is not illegal," he rebutted. I
chastised him for talking back, and then I took away the box of crayons
so others could share them... angrily, he then pointed to a drawing of
his hanging on the wall and yelled, "That's my picture! You don't have
the right to present my copyrighted material in a public exhibition
without my permission! You're pirating my intellectual property.
Pirate! Pirate! Pirate!"
[/quote]
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I think it's fair to say that Microsoft's business practices have often
> been less than inspiring, but nothing that warranted antitrust action.
Bill Gates is a genius. He has made and sold bullshit, convinced
everyone that it is software and has managed avoid breaking any
anti-fraud laws in the process. Not everyone can do this.
Bob Kolker
cr113
Agent Cooper wrote:
>different business models is all. Bt as long as Microsoft has the model
> is has, it will produce big, buggy software that is a few years behind
> innovationwise, but that runs on scads of machine and will not fail to
> run your old programs.
And don't forget the most important thing. Price. Microsoft products
tend to be much cheaper than others.
-
-
-
-
-
Jerry Story
that I would bite my tongue.
fred...@papertig.com
> Agent Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it's fair to say that Microsoft's business practices have often
I disagree. The only thing I find less than inspiring is their
inability to defend themselves against such charges.
> Bill Gates is a genius. He has made and sold bullshit, convinced
> everyone that it is software ...
Oh, please. This is the bullshit.
What is it now, 90% or something of all the computers in the world run
on MS software - and with the vast majority of its customers not only
satisfied with it (as I am) but it keeps getting better and better.
With each successive incarnation of Windows, it got better and with
fewer and fewer problems.
You both seem to forget that customers by the 1,000's lined up around
the block to get the first copies of Windows95. They now have millions
of people eagerly awaiting Vista.
Predominantly, the only ones who have ever complained about Microsoft
were computer professionals. The vast, vast majority of ordinary
computer users fortunately could just ignore them for the envious
pretentious whiners that many of them are and enjoy the extraordinary
technological revolution that MS has made possible.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
Agent Cooper wrote:
> Cheaper?
Windows has always been the cheaper alternative. I don't know about
right now, but historically speaking, it has been.
Remember, Windows became popular because it was a GUI interface,
back when DOS was the most popular OS. At one time all you had was a
text screen, and a mouse was not necessary. Then, here comes this
super cheap *graphical* OS that tacks onto DOS and allows you to use a
mouse to select things on the screen, ala Apple. Only, you didn't
have to go and pay thousands of dollars for an Apple computer, all you
had to do is shell out about $100 and get almost the same thing. Not
only that, you could have your DOS too.
Since then, Windows has consistently been cheaper and gotten better.
Due to its cheapness and popularity, it has also been supplied with
tons more third party software than Apple computers.
MS offers real value to customers. If it didn't, then businesses
that used it wouldn't be able to out compete business that didn't.
Lots of highly intelligent and successful people have continued to
choose Windows over any other OS.
OS's like Linux are virtually free, but can't compete well, because
they are more complicated to configure than Windows. Apple was
significantly more costly.
Windows has tons of problems, and could be much better designed, but
in the market today, they give more people more bang for their buck
than any other software for most people who need computers. I use
Windows every day, and though I complain about it, it's quite good
considering how often I use it. It gives me a lot.
Having said that, there is no doubt a better OS will take its place.
It's inevitable, 1> because there are many problems with Windows, and
2> because progress is open ended.
...John
Malrassic Park
>What is it now, 90% or something of all the computers in the world run
>on MS software - and with the vast majority of its customers not only
>satisfied with it (as I am) but it keeps getting better and better.
>With each successive incarnation of Windows, it got better and with
>fewer and fewer problems.
Ewwwww!!!!
Malrassic Park
wrote:
> Since then, Windows has consistently been cheaper and gotten better.
UPnP exploit.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
> Windows has tons of problems, and could be much better designed, but
>in the market today, they give more people more bang for their buck
>than any other software for most people who need computers. I use
>Windows every day, and though I complain about it, it's quite good
>considering how often I use it. It gives me a lot.
The only thing Windows is really good for is making me some money on
tech support and repairs.
Gordon Sollars
agentc...@yahoo.com says...
> This is not the problem with Mr. Bill. The problem is that his products
> are not very good.I think the main reason for this is that Microsoft
> has decided to trade off quality of product against size of potental
> market along two dimensions. First, Windows is meant to work with ALL
> PCs of a certain type, but Microsoft cannot control how all this
> hardware is made, so this creates a great deal of complexity in their
> code. Similarly, Microsoft wants to be able to run ALL legacy software,
> with the same effect. By contrast, Apple (say) doen't aspire to run its
> OS on *everything* and is perfectly happy to inconvenience its users
> and developers by requiring dramatic rewrites of software everytime
> Apple wants to make major changes in their OS. They're just very
> different business models is all. Bt as long as Microsoft has the model
> is has, it will produce big, buggy software that is a few years behind
> innovationwise, but that runs on scads of machine and will not fail to
> run your old programs.
This is an old story in technology. In 1963, IBM did not have a
computer with an instruction that could support virtual memory;
Burroughs did. Much good it did them. Long ago, when I was a tech
weenie, I got excited about these sorts of differences, but it is not
what drives markets, typically. (However, if the Intel had not added
instructions to support bit-mapped graphics to the 80386, history might
have been different, given the demand for graphical interfaces.)
> I think it's fair to say that Microsoft's business practices have often
> been less than inspiring, but nothing that warranted antitrust action.
What do you mean by "business practices"? I think that they have
sometimes played poker in the courts because they have the biggest stack
of chips, but this is also the fault of the legal system.
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
agentc...@yahoo.com says...
> Microsoft was from the beginning a company built on brilliant
> deal-making, not innovative technology. Essentially everything they
> have done since DOS has been second-hand lifting of Apple concepts. Not
> that there's anything wrong with that.
Xerox Parc concepts, please. Or Doug Engelbart's.
--
Gordon
John Alway
Agent Cooper wrote:
> This is all enormously misleading. To understand Microsoft's market
> position, you have to go back to the 80s, the contract to provide DOS
> to IBM, IBM's shortsighted failure to make the arrangement exclusive,
> the emergence of the PC clones, etc. Windows was initially a program
> that ran on top of DOS, which every PC clone company wanted because
> only in that way could their machines run compatibly with IBM's.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. There is nothing misleading
about what I said.
PC clones were popular, because somehow the spec for creating IBM
compatible machines became widely available, to IBM's chagrin. The
resulting competition among pc clone designers/manufacturers was fierce
and lead to very cheap computers. This was how IBM compatibles became
much cheaper than Apple computers, which nobody but Apple was allowed
to build. This is what made IBM PCs much more popular than Apples.
MS wrote a version of DOS, MSDOS. IBM's was PCDOS. Then, on top
of MSDOS, MS supplied their first version of Windows.
> Microsoft was from the beginning a company built on brilliant
> deal-making, not innovative technology.
MS has always supplied greater value to customers. Value is price
and quality combined. In doing this, they were innovative, both
technologically and in a business sense. It's one thing to build pie
in the sky technologies, it's another to build something people want.
The Windows GUI was innovative. Maybe not strikingly, brilliantly
innovative, but it was innovative, and it was brilliant from a
marketing standpoint. This means, they saw further ahead in terms of
where customers would be in the future.
They provided something cheap that customers pined for.
>... Essentially everything they
> have done since DOS has been second-hand lifting of Apple concepts. Not
> that there's anything wrong with that.
This is not true. Even the graphical interface is not original
with Apple. And, I've mentioned here things like Visual Basic, which
is a highly innovative programming package that allows unsophisticated
programmers to build fancy programs relatively quickly.
> You're correct that price competition was an issue for the Wintel
> platform vs the Apple platform in the past, but this is not some sort
> of achievement on the part of Microsoft. The *hardware* was cheap.
I'm aware of this, but MS provided a cheap graphical OS that
worked. And what's more telling, is that they continued to grow their
market share.
Also keep in mind that the Intel architecture had a major design
problem which would affect increasing the memory addressing capability.
Segmented addressing made it difficult to design an effective OS.
That problem no longer exists, but the fact is made for some bumpy
transitioning as earlier software had to be compatible with later
hardware.
Also keep in mind that anyone can compete in the market place. Anyone
who thinks they have a better mouse trap could enter the market at any
time and try and take it from MS. They just need to supply the value.
Well, it's been well over a decade of MS dominance, and it hasn't
happened yet. That should tell you something.
>... This
> is like congratulating Michelin for the price of your Honda. As my
> comments above indicated, as soon as Apple switched to an Intel
> architecture, their prices came down to about $200 above the comparable
> Wintel machines.
> I think that the reason why Objectivists find Gates attractive, though
> he is the Peter Keating of the computer industry, is entirely explained
> in terms of the antitrust action, and an "enemy of my enemy is my
> friend" psychology.
This is absurd. A Peter Keating was not an innovator. He does
what others want him to do. Bill Gates carved his own path and
provided new products. He didn't follow anyone. Whatever you say
about MS, they provided REAL VALUE.
For crying out loud, it's one thing to criticize Windows for it's
flaws (which I do all the time), it's altogether another thing to claim
they are second handers. You have no bloody clue as to what it takes
to write software if you can say something like that. You have no
idea the brain power required to design an OS, or any software for that
matter.
...John
John Alway
> > > I think it's fair to say that Microsoft's business practices have often
> > > been less than inspiring, ...
> I disagree. The only thing I find less than inspiring is their
> inability to defend themselves against such charges.
> > Bill Gates is a genius. He has made and sold bullshit, convinced
> > everyone that it is software ...
> Oh, please. This is the bullshit.
Quite so. Not only isn't it true, it contradicts free market
principles.
> What is it now, 90% or something of all the computers in the world run
> on MS software - and with the vast majority of its customers not only
> satisfied with it (as I am) but it keeps getting better and better.
> With each successive incarnation of Windows, it got better and with
> fewer and fewer problems.
I think they have been getting better and they've kept market
share. But, it's also true that there are major flaws in Windows.
They can't even design software that doesn't crash on their system
(their browser), which makes it difficult for me (a
programmer/engineer) to design software that is solid. Their
documentation is a nightmare to go through for a developer. It's
terribly organized. The basic Windows architecture could be much
cleaner and more intuitive, which would allow for the development of
much more powerful and solid software. However, I understand that the
reason it's a mess is because of the way the market developed. They
had to deal with the real world and all of it's bumpy roads. They
don't live in a Platonic world.
> You both seem to forget that customers by the 1,000's lined up around
> the block to get the first copies of Windows95. They now have millions
> of people eagerly awaiting Vista.
> Predominantly, the only ones who have ever complained about Microsoft
> were computer professionals. The vast, vast majority of ordinary
> computer users fortunately could just ignore them for the envious
> pretentious whiners that many of them are and enjoy the extraordinary
> technological revolution that MS has made possible.
You're right. I'm a computer professional, and I complain about the
Windows OS incessantly. I know something better is possible. But, at
the same time, I appreciate the brilliance and achievement of the
company.
...John
Gordon Sollars
jal...@gmail.com says...
> The Windows GUI was innovative. Maybe not strikingly, brilliantly
> innovative, but it was innovative, and it was brilliant from a
> marketing standpoint. This means, they saw further ahead in terms of
> where customers would be in the future.
It is difficult for me to see the innovation in, say, Windows 1.0 or
even 3.0. Microsoft's genius was in not getting out ahead of what could
be done cheaply, despite the longings of techies to do so, but
nevertheless being ready to embrace new hardware as soon as it was
available. Gates knew very closely what Intel was going to provide and
when it was going to provide it, at a crucial time in the industry's
development.
--
Gordon
Reggie Perrin
John Alway wrote:
> [...]
> MS has always supplied greater value to customers. Value is price
> and quality combined. In doing this, they were innovative, both
> technologically and in a business sense.
Smart, I grant you, but innovative? I can't see how copying the best
bits of other peoples' designs is innovative, even if the final product
is cheaper.
John Alway
Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <1143920498.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> jal...@gmail.com says...
> > The Windows GUI was innovative. Maybe not strikingly, brilliantly
> > innovative, but it was innovative, and it was brilliant from a
> > marketing standpoint. This means, they saw further ahead in terms of
> > where customers would be in the future.
> It is difficult for me to see the innovation in, say, Windows 1.0 or
> even 3.0.
It's innovative just to come up with a GUI that sits on top of
DOS. One of their big challenges was to make a non-multitasking OS
(DOS) work like a multi-tasking OS. Win3.0 was, afterall, part of
DOS. Then, later, with Windows95, they made a true pre-emptive
muti-tasking OS.
We can debate what "innovative is", but I contend that you need to
do lots of innovating at a minor level to create an OS to begin with.
Big innovations are much more rare.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>>Agent Cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>I think it's fair to say that Microsoft's business practices have often
>>>>been less than inspiring, ...
>
>
>>I disagree. The only thing I find less than inspiring is their
>>inability to defend themselves against such charges.
>
>
>>>Bill Gates is a genius. He has made and sold bullshit, convinced
>>>everyone that it is software ...
>
>
>>Oh, please. This is the bullshit.
>
>
> Quite so. Not only isn't it true, it contradicts free market
> principles.
Take my advice. Do not run a network server that has to be up 24/7 on a
machine run by Windows software. Windows is buggy.
Windows is quite adequate for non-specialized and non-critical use, but
for serious industrial strength computing when reliability is critical
do not run Windows.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> It is difficult for me to see the innovation in, say, Windows 1.0 or
> even 3.0. Microsoft's genius was in not getting out ahead of what could
> be done cheaply, despite the longings of techies to do so, but
> nevertheless being ready to embrace new hardware as soon as it was
> available. Gates knew very closely what Intel was going to provide and
> when it was going to provide it, at a crucial time in the industry's
> development.
"No one needs more than 640 K memory" -- Bill Gates.
Bob Kolker
>
Gordon Sollars
says...
Even monkeys fall out of trees.
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
jal...@gmail.com says...
>
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > It is difficult for me to see the innovation in, say, Windows 1.0 or
> > even 3.0.
>
> It's innovative just to come up with a GUI that sits on top of
> DOS.
I said difficult to "/see/ the innovation". ;-)
--
Gordon
Malrassic Park
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Take my advice. Do not run a network server that has to be up 24/7 on a
>machine run by Windows software. Windows is buggy.
Yet it's ok if you want it to crash, or you don't care who accesses
the network, or you don't mind if someone uses it as a base for zombie
attacks.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
> You're right. I'm a computer professional, and I complain about the
>Windows OS incessantly. I know something better is possible. But, at
>the same time, I appreciate the brilliance and achievement of the
>company.
Bleh. MS Corp completely contradicts the grandiose statements Ayn Rand
made about capitalism and competition. As it turns out (in the real
world which Rand evaded), MS shows us that popularity and marketing
strategies beat values such as employee competence and product
effectiveness, and in a philosophical sense, that Pragmatism wins
against Objectivism. It is a clear Objectivist demonstration of the
fact that values and capitalism don't mix.
Jerry Story
> "No one needs more than 640 K memory" -- Bill Gates.
fred...@papertig.com
> ...Apple *invented* the PC industry, ...
That may be, but that's like noticing that Rockefeller didn't invent
oil refining or Ford the automobile or Kodak the camera.
What these companies did "invent" is mass marketing of these products
and worldwide standardization and distribution. The very thing that MS
was attacked for is precisely the very thing the industry needed in the
90's if it was to become a mass product. He forced Windows down the
industry's throat, i.e. that was a good thing! And of course, as we all
know, what he got in return was an anti-trust suit.
So now as a "computers for dummies" guy, I can run my business from
home and easily communicate with customers all over the world.
I've had only two serious problems with MS products. First, annoying
freeze-ups. But that has simply meant re-booting. I've lost data
sometimes but it's never been important. But the other side of it is
that I tend to push my computer to the limit, keeping multiple programs
open and sometimes as many as 6-8 web pages. Lately, I've been noticing
that I've been having fewer freeze-ups, which since I'm not using my
computer any differently I can only attribute to some MS update(s)
which they install regularly.
The other problem is of course IE, the major problem there being
browser hijacking and spyware. But MS now has a spyware program which
seems to be working and seems to have eliminated the problem. On the
other hand, I don't really know for sure because I switched to Mozilla
(which has some features I like, but overall I regard as inferior to
IE).
As for comparing Gates to Keating, that's absurd - as if Mal would
know. If I were to compare Gates to any Rand character it might be Gail
Wynand. Certainly not Keating. Gates was no second-hander - except
unfortunately, like Wynand - philosophically. Thus he was unable to
defend his company against attacks.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
> > fred...@papertig.com wrote:
If you want a highly reliable OS for some sort of mission critical
operation, then don't use Windows. I agree. But, for RTOS, usually
you don't use Windows or Mac, or Linux, but, rather, some specialized
OS.
Still, having said that, Windows has improved the reliability of
their servers and they work for most applications.
...John
John Alway
In almost all engineering you're copying other's ideas, because
you're largely building on the knowledge of the past. The key is how
you integrate to create something new. Making something that is
absolutely new, ala an Edison, is relatively rare.
Here's another question, how is Apple innovative? I like Apple, and
believe they are innovative, but I'd like to know how people who say MS
isn't innovative would assess Apple.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
Yup.
Bob Kolker
greap
made about capitalism and competition. As it turns out (in the real
world which Rand evaded), MS shows us that popularity and marketing
strategies beat values such as employee competence and product
effectiveness, and in a philosophical sense, that Pragmatism wins
against Objectivism. It is a clear Objectivist demonstration of the
fact that values and capitalism don't mix.
If you are going to troll at least don't talk complete and utter
nonsense.
I develop for the MS platform and security, performance and reliability
are not a problem. The "problem" is that Windows can be used by anyone
with even the slightest technical skill. With Linux you need to
understand it before you can configure it.
If "employee competence" was really an issue why is the likes of
OpenOffice a decade beind MS Office in terms of functionality? Why has
.net already got a larger share of the market then Java even though
Java had a 7 year head start? You can bitch and moan all you want but
the fact remains that MS produce a better product then the likes of
Apple and the Nix houses. Perhaps if they stopped wasting their money
on lobbying to get Microsoft taken to court and more of it on producing
real world products that people can and want to use then they might be
able to overtake MS.
Liam
greap
believe they are innovative, but I'd like to know how people who say MS
isn't innovative would assess Apple.
Apple seem to be very good with interfaces and usability (much like you
said, engineering on others ideas is still innovation). The easiest
example to cite here would be the iPod. MP3 players had been done
before (and even now there are players that are better then the iPod on
the market - I am currently on a Creative Micro) but Apple innovated in
the way it allowed people to navigate the media and the clarity of the
data it displays to the user.
Jerry Story
denies it. And it is said that Bill Gates denies having said that.
Bill Gates was also misquoted as saying that Windows has no bugs. What
he actually said according to WikiQuote is:
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed."
Ken Gardner
>This is not the problem with Mr. Bill. The problem is that his products
>are not very good.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Objectivism or even philosophy.
But I am actually a big fan of Microsoft products and have been so for
years. I have had less problems with Microsoft software than
non-Microsoft software.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>I've had only two serious problems with MS products. First, annoying
>freeze-ups.
I haven't had a single freeze-up since Windows XP, including the
public beta versions. That's more than 5 years ago and counting. Come
to think of it, I don't remember any freezups with Windows 2000
either. Nor have I ever had a freezup or other problem with any of
the Microsoft Office products. As I said before, I'm a big Microsoft
fan. And when I took the time to learn how Windows XP actually works
(e.g. thread management, memory management, and so on), I became an
even bigger fan.
Ken
John Alway
Agent Cooper wrote:
[...]
> I give Gates credit for accomplishing what he accomplished, and I
> revile the attempt to kill him with antitrust litigation, but that
> doesn't change the facts about the products or the history of the
> company. Gates was a brilliant *deal-maker*. The whole company was
> built on a deal with IBM to provide an OS before any OS was in his
> possession.
Lots of people do that, Coop. Lots of people make promises
before hand and sell someone on their idea before it's a reality.
Most of those people probably fail. Especially if the promises are
big. Gates came through with a product. Without that, he'd have never
gotten anywhere. He built a reputation as a guy who gets results.
Gates created products and that's what allowed him to make deals.
MSDOS, Win3.0, Win95, etc., are all real world values created by MS.
Without them, there would be no MS.
...John
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>
>If "employee competence" was really an issue why is the likes of
>OpenOffice a decade beind MS Office in terms of functionality?
It's called "money," in terms of marketing skill versus creating a
decent product. There is no money in OpenOffice (which I've used and
found to be buggier than MS Office, but that's beside the point). They
smell money and run toward it like hungry wolves feeding off the MS
carcass.
fred...@papertig.com
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> >I've had only two serious problems with MS products. First, annoying
> >freeze-ups.
>
> I haven't had a single freeze-up since Windows XP, including the
> public beta versions.
I'd love to know what you've done differently than me. XP was a dream
for about a year before I started getting freeze-ups with some
regularity. But as I've said - knock wood - the problem seems to have
gone away over the last few months.
> ...Nor have I ever had a freezup or other problem with any of
> the Microsoft Office products.
On those, neither have I. The one I use the most is Access. Other than
a couple of slightly annoying things it does (or doesn't do), I'm very
pleased with it and never had any problems with it. I've also been
basically pleased with MS ImageComposer and FrontPage, again with some
relatively minor exceptions - though admittedly my use of them is at a
fairly elementary level. (I had a friend - a real computer genius - who
used to dazzle me with some of the things which could be done with
them. He, btw, was also a big MS enthusiast and he had no patience with
the criticisms of them. One of the great regrets of his life was that
they wouldn't hire him. I don't know why. He wasn't much of a team
player. Maybe that was it.)
> As I said before, I'm a big Microsoft fan.
Me, too. But I acknowledge I could be blissfully ignorant of what
"could be" if only I knew more (or cared). To that extent I empathize
with the more knowledgeable. But I don't. So....
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Lots of people do that, Coop. Lots of people make promises
> before hand and sell someone on their idea before it's a reality.
> Most of those people probably fail. Especially if the promises are
> big. Gates came through with a product. Without that, he'd have never
> gotten anywhere. He built a reputation as a guy who gets results.
>
> Gates created products and that's what allowed him to make deals.
> MSDOS, Win3.0, Win95, etc., are all real world values created by MS.
> Without them, there would be no MS.
There would just be VMS, OS/2, Unix and Linux. Oh the horror, the horror!
Bob Kolker
Gordon Sollars
agentc...@yahoo.com says...
> My assessment of Microsoft is nuanced, unlike everyone else's.
And what am I, chopped liver?
--
Gordon
John Alway
Agent Cooper wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Agent Cooper wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I give Gates credit for accomplishing what he accomplished, and I
> > > revile the attempt to kill him with antitrust litigation, but that
> > > doesn't change the facts about the products or the history of the
> > > company. Gates was a brilliant *deal-maker*. The whole company was
> > > built on a deal with IBM to provide an OS before any OS was in his
> > > possession.
> > Lots of people do that, Coop.
> Don't confuse me with someone else. My point was that this is
> *entrepreneurian* skill, not technological innovation.
The problem with your point is that there was technical innovation.
There was certainly a real world product that made Gate's success
possible. Deals mean nothing without value to back them up. Gates
had that. If Gates had not come through with a real product, then I'd
agree with you, but he did.
What he had was better than Apple, because, all told, it was cheaper
than Apple. That's a real value. Nobody else was offering a
graphical interface for IBM PCs, so far as I know. So, there is real
value there.
>...I have a healthy
> appreciation for both, and can tell the difference.
I know you say that, but I'm not sure. Not trying to be flip, just
going by your assessment here.
>... Nor is this the
> sort of thing I was thinking of that I described as "less than
> inspiring." I was thinking of things like paying manufacturers of
> competing products to stop manufacturing them.
You can't do that sort of thing unless you have leverage. That
leverage comes from the value of their products. I couldn't walk up to
a retailer and demand that they place my software on their computers
and keep out competitors. I couldn't just make a deal like that,
because I don't have the leverage.
...John
John Alway
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
[...]
> > Gates created products and that's what allowed him to make deals.
> > MSDOS, Win3.0, Win95, etc., are all real world values created by MS.
> > Without them, there would be no MS.
> There would just be VMS, OS/2, Unix and Linux. Oh the horror, the horror!
You missed my point, which is that they produced real value in the
real world, and this is how they made money. If Gates had no products
to sell, he'd not have made a red cent.
And, it would be a "horror" for the average user.
Unix, not user friendly. Linux, not user friendly. Configuring
hardware on those products isn't easy. With Windows, you simply "plug
n play". Much easier for the average user.
Linux does have lots of nice interfaces, and is virtually free, yet
can't make much headway in the market.
Unix is multi-tasking, but not multithreading. It's been around
since the 1960s? Linux has the value of being multi-threading, as
does Windows.
MS makes tons of other products, aside from OSs, as well. For
instance, their DirectX graphical interface is very good, and getting
better. In many ways it's better than OpenGL, even if it's not
portable like OpenGL.
...John
John Alway
Thanks for answering me. You answered, but I was hoping for an Apple
supporter/MS critic to answer.
Yes, iPod is what instantly came to my mind as well, but, as you
note, their idea wasn't ground breaking, it was just a smart idea, a
little wrinkle, that made it big in the market. Apple didn't come up
with the memory technology that allowed for the miniaturizing of memory
that could handle that much data on such a small device. But, they
made good use of it.
...John
John Alway
There is a lot of beauty to the way the memory is managed. It's
very complex too. With the primary cache, secondary cache, and main
memory, and then the working set, etc.
Do you keep your computer running 24/7?
I get freeze ups perhaps once every two or three weeks, but, then,
I do quite a bit with my computers. The whole machine may not freeze
up, but, for instance, the wireless network does, and the only way to
get it back, often, is by a reboot. It also freeze sometimes when it's
backing up to the Iomega drive. My Dad just had a big feeze up on his
notebook computer, when he was trying to install the latest Norton
Anti-Virus. I had a problem when I tried to use install an MS update
last year. WinXP somehow wouldn't take the update. I probably spent
a week trying to make it work, and finally just gave up, and shut down
updates altogether.
This is why I say there are major problems with MS. I get problems
like this, and the solutions aren't readily found. This is a problem
of a non-clean design. Windows has become a hodge-podge, I'm afraid.
Dynamic Link Libraries have real strengths, but their weaknesses are
too great. Sometimes programming on Windows is like programming in a
soup.
I really believe that what's going to have to happen is that a new
OS will have to be designed complete with it's own hardware
architecture, with no worries about compatability with other OS
software (save for perhaps emulation). Then, a great OS design would
be doable. Something that is easy and intuitive to use and easy and
intuitive to develop on. At the same time, it'd have to be robust and
fast.
There is a principle of engineering KISS, keep it simple stupid.
The simpler you keep things, the better they will perform.
...John
fred...@papertig.com
> I really believe that what's going to have to happen is that a new
> OS will have to be designed complete with it's own hardware
> architecture, with no worries about compatability with other OS
> software (save for perhaps emulation). Then, a great OS design would
> be doable. Something that is easy and intuitive to use and easy and
> intuitive to develop on. At the same time, it'd have to be robust and
> fast.
Interesting that you should mention that because that's what I think
will happen. I say that not out of any expertise in computers, but just
from observing how technology has developed in other areas.
A good example of that was the old Beta vs. VHS battle in video tape.
Who cares about that old battle now that video tape has been supplanted
by DVD - or by DVR's which can store large amounts of material. I
haven't bought video tape in several years now.
Or look at the way that digital cameras have replaced film.
All that will be needed is some way to transfer our data from Windows
to this new OS.
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>> I haven't had a single freeze-up since Windows XP, including the
>> public beta versions.
>I'd love to know what you've done differently than me. XP was a dream
>for about a year before I started getting freeze-ups with some
>regularity. But as I've said - knock wood - the problem seems to have
>gone away over the last few months.
Well, several things. I regularly take care of routine OS
maintenance, such as cleaning up junk files and defragging my hard
drive. I don't install unnecessary software. I generally don't
install software that isn't designed to run with Windows XP. I
regularly update all of my software. I use Task Manager to keep a
close eye on what processes are running on my computer and how much
RAM they are consuming. I avoid all "performance enhancement"
software and third party utility software like the plague. These
things cause many more problems than they purport to solve (but
don't). XP runs best when you run it the way Microsoft originally
designed it to run.
And of course, you must use good antivirus software and know how to
avoid installing spyware, malware, and other crudware on your machine.
This goes without saying. Once this crud gets on your hard drive,
it's like wrecking your car. Even if you can fix it, it is never
quite the same as before the wreck.
[...]
Ken
Ken Gardner
> There is a lot of beauty to the way the memory is managed. It's
>very complex too. With the primary cache, secondary cache, and main
>memory, and then the working set, etc.
This is the most interesting thing to me about XP. About 3-4 months
ago, I bought a book called Windows Internals (4th edition). It goes
into these things in excruciating and technical detail, but you come
away being very impressed with the entire design. You also learn what
really makes your computer run optimally. Had I read this book or its
equivalent years ago, I would have saved a small fortune in
"performance enhancing" or "performance optimization" software that
was mostly junk.
> Do you keep your computer running 24/7?
Yes. And I constantly have lots of programs running at the same time
-- as much as my physical RAM will allow without causing paging to the
hard drive. I rarely close these programs, but let them run 24/7 as
well. Right now, I have 11 different programs running at the same
time, including Agent (my newsreader).
Of course, you should have lots of physical RAM before trying this at
home. :) I have 1 GB of RAM, which is plenty for what I do on this
computer. Because everything is already loaded into RAM, they all run
at lightning speed. Good memory management is, IMO, about 99% of the
secret to running XP optimally. And you can do it using Task Manager
alone, although System Monitor is also very useful and even
educational.
> I get freeze ups perhaps once every two or three weeks, but, then,
>I do quite a bit with my computers. The whole machine may not freeze
>up, but, for instance, the wireless network does, and the only way to
>get it back, often, is by a reboot.
This sometimes happens to me. I have a cable modem. Sometimes, I
lose my connection because Charter (my cable company) is doing behind
the scenes maintenance and upgrading. Usually, I can get it back by
rebooting the modem alone. But sometimes this doesn't work unless I
first shut down the computer.
I also have a wireless keyboard and mouse. Once or twice, I lost the
connection and could reestablish it only by rebooting the computer.
The point here is that I have to reboot only when I have hardware
issues or when updating software (when a reboot is required following
the update). Otherwise, I run it 24/7. I sometimes go weeks without
rebooting my computer.
>It also freeze sometimes when it's
>backing up to the Iomega drive. My Dad just had a big feeze up on his
>notebook computer, when he was trying to install the latest Norton
>Anti-Virus.
You mean the Symantec virus? :) I used to love Norton back in the
pre-XP days. But in recent years it has caused me nothing but
problems, and now I avoid Symantec products like the plague.
>I had a problem when I tried to use install an MS update
>last year. WinXP somehow wouldn't take the update. I probably spent
>a week trying to make it work, and finally just gave up, and shut down
>updates altogether.
I don't remember ever having a problem with updates. But I am aware
that others have had problems from time to time.
[...]
> There is a principle of engineering KISS, keep it simple stupid.
>The simpler you keep things, the better they will perform.
This is a good principle for just about anything having to do with
computers. :)
Ken
cr113
> You're right. I'm a computer professional, and I complain about the
> Windows OS incessantly. I know something better is possible. But, at
> the same time, I appreciate the brilliance and achievement of the
> company.
Same here. One reason is that Microsoft gets used so much. Flaws get
exposed. If everyone used Linux, people would always be complaining
about it also. I'm always cussing out Bill Gates. But I know it's still
a good value.
When I've tried using other products I've found Microsoft to be much
more intuitive. Ever tried Novell? What a piece of crap. Borland? I
inherited a project written in Borland C++. That was the most
complicated package I've ever developed on. It took me a week to write
my "hello world" program.
Reggie Perrin
cr113 wrote:
> [...]
> When I've tried using other products I've found Microsoft to be much
> more intuitive. Ever tried Novell? What a piece of crap. Borland? I
> inherited a project written in Borland C++. That was the most
> complicated package I've ever developed on. It took me a week to write
> my "hello world" program.
I feel your pain. I once had to write a C++ program that modelled
soliton interactions, and another that modelled Bohm's quantum
potential function (oh,and bizarrely, one that played
noughts-and-crosses). I would rather slit my own wrists than do
anything like that again. See also: using Linux.
David Buchner
> I've had only two serious problems with MS products. First, annoying
> freeze-ups. But that has simply meant re-booting. I've lost data
> sometimes but it's never been important. But the other side of it is
> that I tend to push my computer to the limit, keeping multiple programs
> open and sometimes as many as 6-8 web pages.
Wow. I was curious, so I just went and looked. Right now, I have 10
applications open... 2 of them web browsers. And in my main browser, I
have 29 separate web pages open.
So there.
If my system freezes up, I'll really deserve it. ;-)
(PS - 2 of those pages are "Vandal targets UW Army station," from The
Daily Cardinal -- and -- this hilarious thing you linked to, about how
"the Bush Administration's tax policy decisions reflect objectivist
ethics." Damn, that's weird.
http://www.dailycardinal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3
21&Itemid=40
)
cr113
LOL! That doesn't sound like fun. You had to do that at work? That
sounds more like a school thing. At least you got to write it yourself.
I had to maintain this piece of crap at work that somebody else left
me. Everytime that program broke I'd start cussing ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reggie Perrin
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > I once had to write a C++ program that modelled
> > soliton interactions, and another that modelled Bohm's quantum
> > potential function (oh,and bizarrely, one that played
> > noughts-and-crosses). I would rather slit my own wrists than do
> > anything like that again. See also: using Linux.
>
> LOL! That doesn't sound like fun. You had to do that at work? That
> sounds more like a school thing.
Aye, uni projects. When I signed up for theoretical physics, I was
expecting to be scribbling stuff on a chalkboard, like in the movies.
Little did I realise at the time that the average academic theoretical
physicist spends his days stuck behind a PC, trying to get some piece
of code to work so that he get a mind-numbingly dull paper out of it.
> At least you got to write it yourself.
*This* is a bonus?! Still remember my supervisor telling me that "your
style is all wrong, like you're programming in C rather than C++".
Given that it was always a severe test of my abilities just to get the
thing working, I felt like telling him where he could shove his style.
> I had to maintain this piece of crap at work that somebody else left
> me. Everytime that program broke I'd start cussing ...
OK, I can see how that would be worse. I guess you'd have to be
second-guessing the guy who wrote the program all the time.