Bill Gates On Linux

Typical by cageyjames · 2003-07-01 04:19 · Score: 5, Funny

(-1) for Bill Gates for being a Troll

Re:Typical by Uatu · 2003-07-01 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

(-1) for Bill Gates for being a Troll

Does this means I can actually ignore the article and not feel guilty when I post about it ?

Great! That's a first...
Re:Typical by ThrasherTT · 2003-07-01 04:51 · Score: 4, Funny

(-1) for Bill Gates for being a Troll

A troll. Literally. See page 120 in the 3E Monster Manual.

--

All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
Re:Typical by geekee · 2003-07-01 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Isn't posting about the article responding to a troll? Shame on all of you. :-)

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Typical by terkozer · 2003-07-01 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative

As great of a quote as this is to bash on Bill.. it is simply not true, but is in fact an urban legend of sorts that has been widely circulated on the internet.
Here is an interview with him clarifying the fact.
There is also a good interview in the New York Review of Books that also attempts to shed a better light on the matter.
Re:Typical by mbourgon · 2003-07-01 06:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, hunt around - I've seen the video. It was Bill at an Apple II conference, 80 or 81. Didn't one of the old Apple CDs have the video?

--
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Re:Typical by NanoGator · 2003-07-01 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

"If Microsoft built cars, the Linux community would make a car that was powered
by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive, and
available freely - but only 5 percent of the people would use it."

The car would have to be assembled at the home. There would be a steering wheel which is only used to navigate the car some of the time. There would be 47 pedals that each respond to varying levels of pressure. The manual would contain no illustrations and only cover half the functionality. A passenger seat is available to add to the Linux car, but the installation procedure requires new tools that you'll have to research how to use. The headlights and blinkers work, but the windshield wipers are still in development. (Nobody thought to copy that functionality until MS did it 4 years ago.) The Linux Community would bash MS for their wiper addition, claiming that one of their modes work only intermittently. However they'll cheer on the Linux team when they finally figure out how to copy that function they thought was useless and would make the users stupider. You'll be able to get a moon roof for free, but once you install it you'll find that you have to replace a component in the engine because suddenly the tires won't turn anymore. There's no automatic transmission, only manual, and it's got 19 gears plus 3 seperate modes.

Despite the well known fact that consumers want easy to use products that do what they need them to without much fuss, the Linux Community will act stunned and surprised at every turn that only the few people with the interest and the time will want anything to do with this car. Meanwhile, the Microsoft car still sells quite well and people drive quite happily with it. They've even got a large selection of games to play.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Typical by jnana · 2003-07-01 09:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, I believe Bill Gates when he says 'trust me, i never said it.' I mean, he is an honest non-megalomaniacal guy who's not given to distorting reality in whatever way is convenient at the moment.
Back to surfing the web with WinME, "the greatest user os ever built".

But... by 2names · 2003-07-01 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

"passing through" technologies don't last as long as Linux has already.

--
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."

Re:But... by Roto-Rooter+Man · 2003-07-01 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

OS/2... 1988-2002. This is shorter than Linux how?

--

The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Re:But... by bladernr · 2003-07-01 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

That depends on what you call a "passing thru" technology.

CORBA has been around since at least 1991 (longer, I think), and most agree that it beat Microsoft in the DCOM-CORBA "Object Wars" (as evidenced by Microsoft moving on to Web Services). Although CORBA now provides the underlying technology for things such as J2EE, it is largely gone as far as a standalone technology. Was CORBA "passing thru" or was/is it a real technology?

OS/2 was also around for quite a number of years, and was until very recently an actual product. Great OS, IMHO. If we want to define Linux as being around long enough to not be "passing thru", then that applies to OS/2 as well.

DR-DOS? PC-DOS? Microsoft outlived them both. Or, to be fair, Microsoft did what it does best, redefined the game.

Mac OS? Doesn't get me started (although I like to think its making a comeback with OS X... made me a convert... UNIX OS with great apps and interface)

Now, I'm no defender of Microsoft, but I think what Bill Gates was probably saying was "Hey, we've faced down stiff competition before, and won. How is this different?" On that point, I have to agree. Maybe they will lose this time, but they have definatly been down this road before and know a little something about smashing threats.

(no, this is not a troll. My favorite OS'es are Linux and Mac OS. Just trying to credit where its due)

--
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
Re:But... by laserjet · 2003-07-01 04:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wouldn't say OS/2 lived to 2002... it certainly was not completely dead, but it was nearly non-existenet in the early to mid nineties except in specialized markets like bank computer.

linux had had about the same lifespan (1988-1994 = 6 years), but is still strongly growing and showing some ballz, and the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).

not to mention that MS basically partered with IBM on OS/2, then back-stabbed them while secretly working on a competeting OS (windows).

Those who don't learn history (or choose to ignore it) are bound to repeat it, Bill.

--
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
Re:But... by Dot.Com.CEO · 2003-07-01 04:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Let me assure you, lots of banks STILL use OS/2 and they will do so for the foreseable future. The fact that you don't use os/2 does not mean it is dead. It is as dead as Fortran and Cobol.

--
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Re:But... by Azghoul · 2003-07-01 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

I gotta assume someone else has already brought this up, but come on! What else is the head of a major public corporation supposed to say?

"Yes, we think Linux is a serious threat to our core business". POW, stock prices get hammered, they get sued.

The guy has to be the leader of the company, he's not there to look objectively at anything!
Re:But... by swordboy · 2003-07-01 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"passing through" technologies don't last as long as Linux has already.

He means on the desktop. Obviously, even Bill knows that Linux kick MS ass on the server side. But until Linus starts bringing the GUI into the tree, then I would tend to agree that Linux will never make significant inroads to Windows.

Heck - Linux doesn't even have a desktop. X/KDE/Gnome/etc are responsible for that. And those run on other unices, too. I'm not sure why Linux = Windows competitor to most. It has nothing to do with a desktop OS.

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Re:But... by Surak · 2003-07-01 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).

Do you remember the "Team OS/2" astroturfing? The Linux community doesn't even need to do stuff like that. It's truly grassroots, even as it's attracted the help of the big names, including OS/2's father, IBM.

The difference with IBM and OS/2 is that they were in an already weakened position when OS/2 was around. The PS/2 line was one of the biggest flops of all-time for IBM, and they were simultaneously trying to sell Windows-based machines and still push OS/2 as their main OS. They were too scattered with that, along with the big divorce lawsuit with Microsoft over their Joint Development Agreement. On top of all that, this is when Microsoft was insisting on per processor license agreements, a practice which got them hand-slapped by the FTC and later the Justice Department.

Linux, on the other hand, is relatively unencumbered by all that baggage, with the noteable exception of the SCO lawsuit, which at this point, has no direct bearing over Linux itself, just IBM, and I don't think they're really sweating it any, despite what Darl McBride would have you think.

--
My journal has hot /. gossip.
Re:But... by nolife · 2003-07-01 05:04 · Score: 4, Informative

If you've ever checked in at a United Airline ticket counter or one of the gates at one of thier hubs, your information was being run on Win3.1 with TCP/IP and Netbeui run off of an OS/2 backend over token ring. The advantage back then was the mainframe connectivity and protocols OS/2 provided (now they have a Linux machines to convert the protocols when needed). They are slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) moving away from this but it is still running fine and has been for over 10 years. Almost all of the smaller stations have been converted to straight TCP/IP without the OS/2.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:But... by bladernr · 2003-07-01 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, J2EE is built using RMI-IIOP (or Internet-InterORB Protocol, or the CORBA protocol), not the original RMI-JRMP (Java Remote Message Protocol). J2EE transactions are CORBA transactions. J2EE security is CORBA security. JNDI naming is CORBA naming. That is how all of the cross-app-server compatability works (or rather, will work, in the future, hopefully, but thats an entirely different topic)

You should read the J2EE specifications, its all in there. J2EE hides all of that CORBA stuff, but its in there.

CORBA is quite alive and well, with new specifications arriving all the time, especially in the telco arena (for network management, etc, there is still lots of active work).

--
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
Re:But... by AstroDrabb · 2003-07-01 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing is many people think the purpose of Linux is to "beat" MS windows. While I think that it will surpass MS in the server area, the desktop may or may not happen, or it may take a number of years for the desktop. But the most important point is that Linux will ALWAYS be around and it is not a competitor of any OS. It is a movement "By the Poeople and For the People". So whether it "beats" MS and takes 90% of the desktop and or server market does not matter. There will always be plenty of developers working on it commercially, academically and non-commercially.

There is currently too much commercial money in Linux from many different players for it to just "go away". Also, MS's typical tactics that they use to "beat" the competition won't work on Linux. Price cuts may keep some from switching, however many that want to switch do it not just because of cost, but also choice. People and companies are tired of the MS slogan of give them the razors and sell them the blades. Most people are not dumb enough to buy into getting heavy discounts from MS. Because they all know that MS will try to make it back some other way once they are locked in. Many people and companies are also tired of the anti-competitve tactics and their freedom of choice being taken away. When you build your infrastructure on MS, then all those app you use are designed to function "best" when you ONLY use other MS stuff. I personally think that MS's goal is to be the ONE developer of all software. Sure, some of the small meaningless shareware type stuff will still float around. But for any of the bigger apps, protocols and codecs, MS wants to hoarde that and be the only controller. It kind of reminds me of a "One Ring to Rule Them All" type of deal.

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:But... by u-235-sentinel · 2003-07-01 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Has anyone told Bill Gates that Linux isn't like OS/2? Personally I never liked OS/2 though I know many who would swear by it.

Apples and Oranges. Microsoft has great marketing skills but no idea what they are talking about. It shows in this interview with Bill. OS/2 was never this popular. Not only IBM but many other companies are using Linux. Hell, even Oracle has announced Linux is their primary development platform. OS/2 never had that from anyone.

How many OS/2 web servers have you guys been hitting lately btw? OS/2 database servers in use? Sure banks use OS/2.. how many banks out there compared to # of other businesses in the world?

See my issue with Bill's comments? Same ol' FUD. Life is good :D

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Re:But... by Greyfox · 2003-07-01 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly what astroturfing was that? Team OS/2 was a volunteer organization with very little actual support from IBM. IBM kept them at a distance due to the "Lunatic Fringe" of rabid OS/2 zealots who would view even constructive criticism of the platform as "FUD" and denounce it as such.
I was a member of Team OS/2 and coincidentally an IBM contractor. A lot of us (Teamers) and a few (About 4 IIRC) (real) IBMers went to the '95 COMDEX on our own dime and our own time to do the grassroots advocacy there. All IBM provided was some OS/2 install CDs and some exhibitor passes to let us get into the show before the doors opened. Oh yeah, and some really gay pink OS/2 shirts...
The astroturfing that year, as I recall, came from Microsoft. They brought a bunch of their own employees to try to counter the efforts of Team OS/2 and make it look like they had a grassroots group, too. We saw about a quarter of the number of "Team Microsoft" on the floor and someone suggested that they be waylaid and left duct-taped in a booth back in the skid row... Oh wait, that was me...
Anyway, Team OS/2 was not an astroturfing effort. The Team's relationship to IBM was always an uncomfortable one and many of the teamers inside the company and out have since moved to Linux. Linux already has far more momentum than OS/2 did. It runs on more platforms (Including the IBM mainframes that OS/2 was SUPPOSED to be ported to,) enjoys the support of more big companies and offers a platform that can not be killed by a single company.
Moreover, Bill Gates knows this. He didn't get to be the world's richest man by chance or luck alone. He didn't technically lie in his first statement; no doubt Linux is no different from OS/2 in his view in that he has to find a way to kill it as quickly as possible. Just as he did with OS/2 by providing discounts on his software PC resellers (including IBM's PCCO) who didn't offer an OS/2 pre-install option. OS/2's installation process was one of its weak points, and Microsoft made sure that every potential user of the operating system would go through it.
Microsoft's only open methods of attack against Linux are legal and in marketing. SCO's threat to sue every Linux user on the planet has already caused several companies that I know about to back away from the operating system. Expect to see more legal attacks from Microsoft or their minions and possible lobbying in Congress to make the OSS method of application development illegal. I expect a huge marketing campaign attacking the credibility of Linux as well. Don't put anything past them, they're protecting their monopoly here. You don't stay the world's richest man by luck or chance either.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

new? by kmac06 · 2003-07-01 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny

...and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies. This is obviously some use of the word 'new' with which I am not familiar.

Uhm, yeah. by Black+Parrot · 2003-07-01 04:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the guy that managed to overlook the internet when he wrote The Road Ahead in 1995.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Uhm, yeah. by bstadil · 2003-07-01 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny

or thought that a real breakthru would be an algorithm to factor large PRIME numbers.

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:Uhm, yeah. by sehryan · 2003-07-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

And then proceeded to realize his oversight, turn is company around on a dime, and now has a large slice of that internet pie.

Just because he discounts it now doesn't mean he can turn around and dominate it later.

--
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Re:Uhm, yeah. by bstadil · 2003-07-01 04:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, Google is your friend

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re: Uhm, yeah. by Black+Parrot · 2003-07-01 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

> And then proceeded to realize his oversight, turn is company around on a dime, and now has a large slice of that internet pie.

Heh. Eight years later and Microsoft's biggest contributions to internet culture are browser integration, Outlook backdoors, and e-mail trojans. I don't think he 'gets' the internet now any more than he did in 1995.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

What did you expect? by FortKnox · 2003-07-01 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Lets see, chief shareholder of MS (which competes with Linux), in a PR interview claims that they are better, and linux will go away.

What do you expect people? Bill Gates annouces that Linux is pretty damn good and may give it a whirl, in other news MS stock drops 50%.

This is just bait to get you guys all riled up. Welcome to PR.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:What did you expect? by Merk · 2003-07-01 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
Yeah, but it does make me really curious about a few things.
- What is Microsoft's true impression of Linux as both an OS and as a competitor?
- How clued in are the top-level people about the capabilities of Linux?
- Will their strategy of ignoring it and spreading FUD change if Linux starts getting nearer to 10% market share?
I think the mere fact they talk about Linux in a USA Today interview with Gates says a lot. Besides, in the interview itself he isn't completely dismissive about Linux or OS/2. He said that OS/2 was serious competition because it had the weight of IBM behind it. If he's publicly saying the same thing about Linux then they are saying in public that it's a major threat.

Personally, I hope they misunderestimate Linux right until it kills them. I stand by my belief that once non-windows home computers have around 20% of the market share, MS is doomed. At that point, hardware manufacturers will be losing serious sales if they release products with only Windows drivers. Software manufacturers will either release only for Windows, or make the software multi-platform and increase their potential market by 20%. Game manufacturers will be in an even better situation. If they release for PC only, they hit a small market, if they make the game multi-platform, not only do they get the additional computers (Linux, OS X, etc.) but additional consoles as well. If MS loses the monopoly on Windows machines as game computers, and Apple decides to break their monopoly on Office by doing what they did with Safari... at that point MS is dead. Let's just hope they don't know it yet.

Yeah.... by TedTschopp · 2003-07-01 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny

They keep bring us new stuff like MS-Bob.... and Clippy... and...

Oh I don't want to have all the fun, you can come up with some...

What other new innovative things has Microsoft done that really were flops.

--
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien

Re:Yeah.... by hendridm · 2003-07-01 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

> They keep bring us new stuff like MS-Bob.... and Clippy...

Of all the stuff they've released in multiple markets over the past two decades, all you can find to troll with are Microsoft Bob (an application from 1995) and Clippy. Seems to me they might not be doing so bad after all. Why not compare modern versions of MS apps to versions of Mac OS or Linux from 1995 then?

I love Linux, but the Microsoft Bob troll is so crusty, like no mistakes were made with Linux or OS X over the years...

OS/2?? by MyHair · 2003-07-01 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Silly Bill, did he forget that Microsoft and IBM partnered on OS/2?

Off to RTFA to find out....

Re:OS/2?? by Zathrus · 2003-07-01 04:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sure, but the last significant collaboration was OS/2 1.2. 1.3 was done primarily by IBM (and was considered pretty much the only usable 1.x release, which isn't saying much). OS/2 2.x was entirely IBM, and all MS code had been expunged from the kernel by the time OS/2 Warp came about... IIRC, the only MS code left at that point was in the file system (HPFS and FAT). OS/2 Warp was considerably more stable than prior versions.

Of course, IBM couldn't market its way out of a paper bag when it came to desktop systems, they had absolutely horrid support, fairly crappy and overpriced development tools (VisualAge was too little, too late, and too buggy), and it never garnered the support necessary to become a serious contender... and I say this as someone who was an OS/2 fanatic back in the day. And while MS was slow on the uptake when it came to the Internet, IBM was downright glacial... most people ran Netscape for Windows under OS/2, which sucked... IBM did finally release a browser (which was damn good for the day), but long after most had given up.

AFAIK, even the banks are moving off of it now... OS/2 was long a mainstay in the financial world, especially at banks and ATMs. Most ATMs now run NT or a proprietary OS. There just isn't any reason to keep OS/2.

subbing articles on himself by pytheron · 2003-07-01 04:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

What is Bill Gates doing submitting stories under his pseudonym (king-of-darkness) ? Anyways, an interesting bit in the article I thought was:

BG: Are you kidding? I mean, let's be serious. That was IBM, a company 15 times our size. Name a bank that didn't use OS/2. OS/2 was IBM's product, and the IBM army marched behind that product.

Now replace IBM with Microsoft, and OS/2 with windows. Not so clever now Mr. Gates !

--
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]

He is correct by dnoyeb · 2003-07-01 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

He is right. Windows is pusing the technologies. Pushing them in the way they desire. nevertheless, they are. Linux has a long way to go for smooth MultiMedia usage.

Nevertheless, he is only right for now. Linux is a locomotive, and its only picking up steam.

Re:He is correct by Aadain2001 · 2003-07-01 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would have to disagree with you. I think Linux is pushing new technologies faster than MS is. Take a look at the 2.5.x (soon to be 2.6.x) kernels. They represent the most modern kernel out there. MS doesn't have all the features in their ntkernel that Linux does, and probably won't for another 5 years. And Linux is very much multimedia friendly. Just look up a few programs such as Xine or Mplayer. These players alone will play ANYTHING out there, and do it very well. To this day I have yet to find a person saying "Linux isn't ready for desktop use" that has tried the latest release from Redhat or Mandrake or SuSE. They are always referring to distros over two years old or older, which was the last time they touched Linux. They just don't get that Linux moves faster than MS has, does, or ever will. And as someone above said, Linux is a train and it's only picking up steam.

--
Space for rent, inquire within

Maybe if Microsoft Developed for Linux by cloudscout · 2003-07-01 04:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

OS/2 was once a joint product between IBM and Microsoft. In fact, I have an old OS/2 book with a foreword by Bill Gates himself where he refers to OS/2 as "the future of computing". That is why NT originally had an OS/2 subsystem and supported the HPFS filesystem from OS/2.

With Linux, Microsoft has never had its hand in the pie. They have never had any control over its development. Linux bears no similarity to OS/2 as a competing technology. To suggest it is just wishful thinking on Bill Gates part.

This is USA Today by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-07-01 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

The magazine with the widest readership in the nation. It probably has the lowest reader-IQ-average as a direct result. The last thing Mr. G wants to happen is for your PHB to read USA Today and think, "Huh. This Linux thing is a big deal."

So, here he says it isn't a big deal. I'm sure that in real life, he cares a great deal about it.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:This is USA Today by seanmeister · 2003-07-01 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny

And just to prove it, there's a big banner ad running on top of the article for the eMode IQ test...

News flash - Bill Gates downplays linux by Radon+Knight · 2003-07-01 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

> Gates seems to be considering Linux as a passing
> thru competition just like OS/2.

Well, what would you expect him to say? That Linux may (if people get their act together) start threatening Windows on the desktop, and that people are really not fond of Microsoft's draconian licensing schemes and forced inclusion of DRM in their products?

A newspaper interview with a businessman is nothing more than an opportunity for free advertising. You don't think Bill knows that?

Re:And don't forget about! by kalidasa · 2003-07-01 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

We bet on graphical user interface.

Funny, I seem to remember that someone else had already proven the GUI in the market when MS "bet" on it.

Microsoft's WMD by Alpha_Nerd · 2003-07-01 04:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft's secret weapon of mass destruction: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3

Nobody used OS/2? by utahjazz · 2003-07-01 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I gotta agree with Bill's reaction on that one. The interviewer lost all credibility when he said that. He's one of those people that thinks he knows the technology market because he uses technology, which at best only tells you about consumer technology.

None of his friends used OS/2 so nobody used it. I guess nobody uses mainframes either, and the Internet was invented 10 years ago.

Extremely ironic... by Noryungi · 2003-07-01 04:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the article, he basically says that few companies have the guts to innovate, and that Microsoft does this constantly...

Surprise: Xerox did that way before Microsoft ever thought about it. And Bill himself only thought about it when he saw one of the first demo model of the Apple Lisa (if I remember well). And that's just one example among many.

Microsoft never innovated: it just latched on all the good ideas. GUIs, ACLs, www browsers, spreadsheet, heck, even the mouse was invented by somebody else.

So, what kind of "innovations" has been created by Microsoft? Maybe Clippy. But that's it, and we all know how helpful that is...

And for those who may believe that Microsoft improved on all of these, I have just four words for you: Blue... Screen... Of... Death.

Whew! Enough ranting. You can start modding me down, now.

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:Extremely ironic... by wfberg · 2003-07-01 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just the one that I can think of - use-based dynamic menus. Perhaps someone can point me to earlier cases of this, but I still like it and still find them useful.

There appears to be a religious objection to them in the Linux world, I suspect primarily because the idea came from Microsoft. OK - so some people hate them, meaning that the feature should be configurable. Despite that, I'd like to see dynamic menus start making their way outside of the Windows world.

It's not so much religious as practical. Think about it. Everytime you stop using a feature for w hile it disappears. Not once, not twice, all the time. Use it or lose it. If you start using a feature, the menu-option reappears.

This means your menu items are never in the same place! You quickly lose all efficiency, especially for menu-items that don't have icons in front of them. You can never sit down at some one else's workstation and expect things to be in the same place. I can't tell my mom she should use the third option from the top (which comes in handy sometimes when she's using a Dutch version of Office, whereas I'm using an English version and the translations are farfetched at best).

Also it changes the way pull down menus have worked for years, with the sole exception of most-recently used files (only at the bottom of the File pull down menu). Talk about breaking the user's mental model of your app!

GUI gurus know this. They tell you, if an option is not available, disable it (gray it out) so the relative position remains the same. This somehow applies to context menus, but not to pull down menus?

I'm all for simple vs. advanced pull down menus, but self-adjusting.. Puh-lease. Not to mention my startmenu is at the same time not alphabetized, as well as unpredictably axing applications all the time. I used it yesterday, now it's gone, but the app I used last a few months ago is still there.. Yikes.

I don't know if self-mutilating pull down menus are a True Microsoft Innovation (R) but yes, they are annoying. There are plenty of better GUI enhancements that could be supported..

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:Extremely ironic... by tuxathon · 2003-07-01 05:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Don't you know: Microsoft invented TCP\IP (backslash intended), text editors (vi is a clone), and 3D grapics (OpenGL stole Mr. Gates idea). Microsoft is the real victim here. If the rest of the world would simply respect their prowess, stop reverse-engineering their products, and sell their ideas to them, we would all be happy.

Must ... not ... gag ...

Dear Bill by Spackler · 2003-07-01 04:28 · Score: 4, Funny

Bill,

I am using Linux. Send me 8 copies of 2003 Advanced Server (under the GPL of course) for the same price, and I will be happy to switch.

spack

Re:Dear Bill by PDHoss · 2003-07-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Spack,

Thanks for writing. I'll get your software in the mail right away; I just need your mailing address.

Oh, never mind, here it is in my SQL box, right here next to your SSN, your home phone, your shopping habits, your mothers maiden name, your dog's favorite food, and a complete catalog of your web surfing history.

MidgetsInLeather.com? Come on, spack.

Love, Bill.

--
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.

Finally, an interview with Gates! by PhysicsGenius · 2003-07-01 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mr Gates,

Given that UNIX technology has been around for almost 40 years now and the Linux implementation of that standard in particular has been with us for 12 or 13 years, wouldn't it be fair to call Windows, the first 32 bit versions of which have only been with us for 8 years, the passing fad?

Re:Finally, an interview with Gates! by Shippy · 2003-07-01 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who cares how long it's managed to be around? How could it be called the passing fad? It hasn't passed yet and is obviously doing very successful so.... where's the interesting point here? So what. UNIX has been around for 40 years and Linux for about 12 to 13 compared to 32-bit Windows' 8. Neither Linux or Windows has died out yet so none of them are passing fads. One's merely younger than the other *shrug*

--
-Shippy

The Ultimate Dupe? by TrollBridge · 2003-07-01 04:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Now I haven't read Slashdot forever, but how many articles throughout /. history do you suppose were titled "Bill Gates On Linux"?

--
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.

I liked this part by missing000 · 2003-07-01 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Bill Gates: Well those are our current competitors. I mean, it's no different than in the past people used [IBM's operating system] OS/2.

USA TODAY: Nobody used OS/2.

Re:I liked this part by JeanBaptiste · 2003-07-01 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative

nobody used OS/2?
I briefly worked for 'fortis' a huge international company, did insurance and investing. thousands, if not tens of thousands of OS/2 seats.
and just the other day i pulled up to a wells fargo atm, and it was out of order... OS/2 in a reboot loop....
OS/2 was a major player, if not for very long...
Re:I liked this part by Sentry21 · 2003-07-01 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Gates is right though. OS/2 was huge - just not in the desktop home-user circles. Hell, my bank still uses OS/2. They're one of the largest banks in Canada, and they're an IBM shop through-and-through. They run on IBM's big iron mainframes, they use IBM's WebSphere (JSP and the whole shebang), and they use OS/2 on their desktops (with Netscape 4).

People nowadays just seem to think that nothing happened, but while it might have been as big a phenomenon as Windows, it sure isn't dead.

--Dan

Re:And don't forget about! by jedidiah · 2003-07-01 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Several somebodies had actually.

Microsoft was the LAST person to the party when it came to the GUI. The same thing goes for "NT" technology. Billy is still trying to effectively replicate both MacOS and OS/2.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Microsoftie English by pubjames · 2003-07-01 04:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I love the bizarre way Microsofties speak.

Normal person: Hey, like your hair cut Bill!

Bill: Thanks. I'm super-serious about my hair. Before it was totally random but now I'm totally dedicated to getting serious about it. My hair has my 100% committment and I'm going to be super-concentrating on that from now on.

Re:Microsoftie English by Enry · 2003-07-01 04:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't you worry about my hair, let me worry about blank.

Re:And don't forget about! by MasteroftheVoxel · 2003-07-01 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's be serious. I mean, we've had to bet the company many times on big technological advances. We bet on the 16-bit PC. We bet on graphical user interface. We bet on the NT technology base. Now we're in the process of betting on a combination of technologies called .Net; Longhorn Web services go along with that.

Let see:
- IBM bet on the 16-bit PC.
- Apple bet on the graphical user interface
- Netscape bet on the web.
- The NT technology base (thats "new technology" technology for those don't know) was forced down user's throats.
- Sun bet on the internet and Java (MS calls this stuff .NET and C#)

Yeah, MS took some big risks there

This is basically a dig at IBM by MsGeek · 2003-07-01 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Heh, this is so fsckn funny...

Bill Gates bringing up OS/2 and comparing it to Linux is basically his way of raising his middle finger in the face of IBM. Gates and IBM had their rancourous falling-out over OS/2, and now that IBM has put much of its still-considerable muscle behind Linux this is his way of talking smack about IBM.

Gates' arrogance is amazing. Read between the lines here. He's saying "we killed OS/2 and we're going to kill Linux...the SCO lawsuit is just the beginning."

Thing is, you can't kill something that has no leaders and is not backed by a rival corporation. Even if Linux was temporarily crushed by MS action or government fiat, it could be revived at any time because the code is free and open and anyone who understands it can build on it.

Read your Greek mythology, Mr. Gates. Hubris goeth before a fall.

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Bill Gates = HULK by Jonny+Ringo · 2003-07-01 04:37 · Score: 4, Funny

BeoWoof Clustar? When Gates don't understand GATES SMASH!

Flaming Bill.... by MyHair · 2003-07-01 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Okay, I RTFA'd. Bill neglects to mention that OS/2 was at one point the future of Microsoft.

BG: . . . I mean, we've had to bet the company many times on big technological advances. We bet on the 16-bit PC. We bet on graphical user interface. We bet on the NT technology base.

Huh? You bet on the 16-bit PC? 640k jokes aside, what other options were there at the time? GUI? Xerox/Mac beat you to it, and it was popular before you did it. NT tech? Hello, you stabbed 32-bit OS/2 in the back and used VMS as a model for the first NT, later making NT more like old Windows by incorporating more and more into the "microkernel".

BG: . . . We will never have a price lower than Linux, in terms of just what you charge for the software. We compete on the basis of, if you look at the value you get out of the system and the overall cost that the system has that apply in our software. For any project, if you look at communications costs, hardware costs, personnel costs, all that, software licensing ranges -- the highest you'd ever find is, like, 3% of any IT-type project. And so the question is can that 3% [compensate], in terms of how quickly you get the system set up?

Is it just me, or was he struggling? And I wonder if the reason MS licensing is such a low percentage due to the higher support costs for their buggy software. (Yeah, yeah, a flame.)

USA TODAY: Is there a scenario by which you would at some point consider porting Microsoft applications into Linux?

BG: There's no consideration of that at this point.

"At this point"? Very interesting that he seems to admit they might consider it at all. Or maybe I'm reading too much into a figure of speech.

Bill has questions. I have answers. by nullard · 2003-07-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Gates: Who has the guts and the willingness to do risk-taking to get ink into the standard user interface?

Me: Apple

Gates: Who else has the guts to get speech, get the recognition levels up, get the learning levels up in the standard interface?

Me: Apple

--

t'nera semordnilap

Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat. by gosand · 2003-07-01 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Who exactly conducted this interview? Think about this for a second: if you got to interview the richest man in the world, wouldn't you want your name on it? All I saw listed as the interviewer was "USA Today". (Beiser took the photo shown) Not only that, but:

1. It was a very short "interview".

2. Some of the questions had the tone of "devil's advocate", giving Gates the perfect opportunity to look like the good guy. (OS/2 question in particular)

3. There was no follow-up to anything, it was just question-answer, question-answer. So if this interview ever took place, it seems like it wasn't an interactive interview. (no big deal, just wanted to point it out)

My non-expert opinion? This was a canned PR interview that MS sent USA Today.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

FIRST USE OF NEW JARGON by fsmunoz · 2003-07-01 04:50 · Score: 5, Funny

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)

It's the GhandiCon!!!! THE GHANDICON!!! Everybody knows the GHADICON!!! So, where are we in the GHANDICON? Uh? Uh? Why didn't you said the GhandiCon? It would have beem simpler AND EVERYBODY USES IT NOW!!!

Ph4t Pr0ps to the GhandiCon!

(cf ESR Recasts Jargon File in Own Image)

"Bill Gates On Linux" by N+Monkey · 2003-07-01 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

"Bill Gates On Linux"
Is he running as an emulation or natively coded?

Why OS/2 "passed through" by DrXym · 2003-07-01 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

IBM were utterly incompetant at marketing it, treating it more like a wedge to drive into business to sell training / hardware than as an OS in its own right. Neither did IBM bother to get its divisions to throw their weight behind it with the consequence that even some IBM software ran better on NT.
It didn't even approach being consumer friendly until Warp 4, by which time it was already a has been
Microsoft kept putting the boot in various over and underhanded ways - spreading FUD, threatening a Windows tax on new machines even those shipping with OS/2 etc.

Linux suffers from some of these problems, but incompetency and bad marketing are hopefully not amongst them. The one thing Linux absolutely has to do however is start loading up with consumer features. This means making stuff easy, be it installing new drivers, supporting graphics and sound properly, playing games. At the moment Linux sucks unless you're prepared to put a lot of effort into it or never intend to change your hardware ever. At present I'd say that the big boys have just about mastered producing a reasonable desktop, but there is a long way to go yet.

Anyone else read subject and think.... by Bombcar · 2003-07-01 04:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Damn! They done ported Bill Gates to Linux!

Ahh, he probably needs a P4 4.4GHz to run though....

--
Fellowship 9/11

Of course he is going to say these things. by GoofyBoy · 2003-07-01 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

By definition, CEOs are cheerleaders to the general masses. The article was written for USA Today, bought mostly for its 4 colour weather map.

Of course his answers are going to be biased. Of course they are going to be "MS NUMBER ONE!" in tone. It would be irresponsible if he didn't.

A CEO is a part sales person. He is selling MS. He and all sales people will streach the truth.

Move along, nothing to see here.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Licensing Costs by DarkFyre · 2003-07-01 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

(From the article)
> For any project, if you look at communications
> costs, hardware costs, personnel costs, all that,
> software licensing ranges -- the highest you'd
> ever find is, like, 3% of any IT-type project.

Wow. Not my experience, to say the least.

To me, this is indicative of exactly where Linux does and will continue to shine. The above statement is probably true for Chase Manhattan, and I doubt we'll see Chase switching to Linux anytime soon (although I don't doubt that their big iron is still a commercial UNIX).

Most of the people I deal with, though, are either small research groups or small businesses: Five guys with three computers and a world to conquer. This is where Linux is already excelling, and I think this is where it will excel for the immediate future.

That is why Gates is wrong. OS/2 had some advantages over Windows (such as the 'IBM army' as he puts it), but it was competing with Windows for the same goal. Where I see Linux being really successful is in places where the Microsoft Barrier-to-Entry(tm) is just too high. Unlike OS/2, Linux isn't going to be driven from these places. Linux is not going away, although it may not be going to the foreground, either.

And as more and more small businesses and contractors and researchers use Linux to do cool and interesting things on the cheap, bigger businesses will start to notice.

Passing through, alright by jlowery · 2003-07-01 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Passing through like the stake in a vampire's heart.

--
If you post it, they will read.

Consistent Message by 4of12 · 2003-07-01 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies.

This is quite consistent with what Bill Gates has said many times before, that "freedom to innovate" was endangered by any action against Microsoft, despite it being officially judged a monopoly.

Alongside this use of doublespeak is the recent lobbying by the "Institute for Software Choice" in Australia for government organizations there to avoid free and open source because of the economic harm it would cause to MSFT, a corporation based in the United States.

As a U.S. citizen, I've already enjoyed the benefits of free and open source software developed in Australia and look forward to seeing more of it. Likewise, a lot of free and open source software has been developed in the United States that could be of great benefit to Australian users in government, industry and at home. I don't see why the Australian government should be especially restricted from making the kinds of command decisions on IT infrastructure that companies all over the world make every day - you know the kind - the corporate standard is to run Windows and to use Word, etc.

The hue and cry about freedom of choice and innovation is only raised when there is a palpable danger that the choice might be other than one designed to further bolster the financial interests of Microsoft, or that innovation might result in a potentially lucrative new technology being developed outside Microsoft.

People like Bill Gates who, with his money and fame, enjoys instant access to government officials and the media across the world to promote his point of view (aligned to increase shareholder value at MSFT) is able to get an audience that common people, or even average knowledgeable IT people, simply cannot hope to get.

The fact that free and open source software is making inroads through grass-roots word of mouth based on its own merits, devoid of such a heavily funded marketing organization, and despite this lopsided point of view being propagated by Gates at the highest levels and in most public venues, is a remarkable testament to Lincoln's adage that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

It gives me hope.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Re:If you think by rutledjw · 2003-07-01 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know how this is "Insightful" but...

Linux truly runs the gambit of support from zilch (but completely free) to 24x7 support for mission-critical applications. This is great when you have development and test environments where you don't want to pay licensing/support for something that customers will never see. You're lowering overhead which nowadays is very important

On the technical side, being able to modify Linux means that it can run in a number of environments from the desktop/workstation (where a larger, less efficient kernel that has more stuff compiled into it doesn't matter) to a server (where stability and speed are more important) to very small devices (where a small memory footprint is important).

If you're talking stability, security, and speed and other *nix features/functions, then yeah, Linux is not a very compelling product. But merely copying *nix isn't what made Linux popular in the first place!

--

Computer Science is Applied Philosophy

Re:But... I remember OS/2 and I worked for a bank by aldousd666 · 2003-07-01 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative

I worked for a bank and we definately did use OS/2 as a platform for IBM Personal Communications. PCOMM (as we called it) was a terminal emulations program that worked on the NCP based (actually they called it LLC2 protocol -- works over tokenring with netbeui) IBM 3270 mainframe. OS/2 wasn't very robust with other applications, in fact, the only apps I remember running were in a DOS session, like WP5.0 and then, we also used the built-in windows3.1 desktop to run just about everything else. PCOMM was it. Interestingly enough, we had a buch of IBM 3270 dumb terminals, which were just as good as a machine to the users, nobody cared that they couldn't use wordperfect, there were typewriters everywhere. We only had one machine in the IT department with internet connectivity, and it was an NT box with a 33.6 modem (top of the line) Users could forget about the internet, and email? That was for managers only! This is why people stopped using os/2, it had no apps, (and nobody expected it to, they all just used DOS and win3.1 even with warp.) and when 3270 started going away, or being replaced by linux clients that can do the same thing, there was never a need to develop it any further.

It wasn't even really competing with MS, because the people who used apps on os/2 ran them in windows (which was conveniently bundled with it out of the box)

I fail to see mr. Gate's analogy here.

--
Speak for yourself.

Re:It's an _ok_ article by DJ+Rubbie · 2003-07-01 05:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, KDE and Gnome, along with other GNU applications put together, is much more than Windows. A couple days ago I convinced one of my friend to switch to Linux, after I showed him Mozilla with the popup blocking and tab browsing, KDE with multiple desktops, OpenOffice.org opening MS Word documents, and all the configurations that can make the GUI smoother for daily usage. Most of those functions (tab based browsing, popup blocking, multiple desktops) are not present in a default Windows installation, and the other functions are certainly not Free in the Windows world. My friend stared in awe when he finally did notice all the default applications (The Gimp, Xine, all the games) that came with Mandrake 9.1, whereas Windows comes with, Windows itself.

Linux is certainly not like Windows, and when Microsoft starts to clone functionalities in KDE/Gnome, wouldn't people say that Windows is just like KDE/Gnome/Linux?

--
Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null

La vie en rose by TheLastUser · 2003-07-01 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bill's view of the world is predictably MS centric.

Who cares what some corporate director thinks of Linux? Linux and OSS do not have to compete in the market as they are not of the market. They cannot be bought or sold, or controlled, driven out of business.

OSS is not another Pepsi for the masses, its for coders, and people that want an OS that was created to be useful, not filled with stupid sh*t thought up by a focus group.

Bill goes on about all of the hot new "technologies" that MS is creating, all with suitably meaningless code names, "longhorn", "lance", "infinity", "big sleek cat like thing". Who knows if any of these things will be useful. Most MS technologies seem to be focused on locking their customers in to their platform rather than providing any useful functionity. Paladium, Doc scripting, passport, the paperclip, need I say more?

Commercial software is increasingly becoming a platform to get you to buy other stuff. Personally, I get enough advertising stuffed through my eyeballs already. Its like movie theatres, remember when you used to go to a movie pay your $2.50 and NOT be showen 30m of commercials before the movie started?

In a nut shell, commercial software producers think a great enhancement is a talking paperclip whereas OSS producers think a popup blocker is a good feature.

Just be happy, and grateful to OSS developers, that you have a choice.

Re:doesn't matter by zog+karndon · 2003-07-01 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Get it right. IBM chopped 384K off the top. There were several other manufacturers (Victor, Zenith, Tandy) who had MS-DOS implementations with 900K usable memory.

Microsoft didn't spec the IBM PC, and IBM didn't spec MS-DOS.

Furthermore, since MS-DOS didn't provide a memory allocator, it's stupid to say that MS-DOS can't address non-contiguous memory.

We missed a chance??? by HarveyBirdman · 2003-07-01 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny

You mean Gates was sitting still for an interview, and no one thought to send a strike team or even a cruise missile? The spectre of this guy still haunts people. No one can move on because they think he might be lurking just around the next corner ready to exact retribution for abandoning him and his regime. What the He- Oh, wait. I'm thinking of Hussein. Never mind.

Wait. You mean *Gates* was sitting still for...

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:doesn't matter by GreyPoopon · 2003-07-01 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm no fan of Bill Gates, or his buggy software... but one has to realize that at the time, 16bits was all you had to work with. That gives you 65,536 byte addresses.

Although the rest of your comment is accurate, I wanted to point out that the number of bits the processor is capable of wasn't the problem. In fact, to the external world, the 8088 processor only handled 8 bits, although internally it processed data in 16 bit chunks. The important fact was the number of address lines. There were 20, but due to the way the system was implemented, the upper four were rendered unavailable. I think someone else pointed out that there were other 8088-based systems that had 900+KB of memory available.

--

GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

open standards, open standards, open standards... by raw-sewage · 2003-07-01 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

As much as I love Linux and the free software movement, my biggest (personal) agenda is educating people about the pitfalls of proprietary data formats (vendor lock-in) and the freedom of open standards (choice).

I think Bill's interview is typical PR material; anyone from MS's marketing group could probably give the same interview. But what scares me, is that every time Microsoft "innovates", all they really do is make stuff that is incompatible with anything non-Microsoft (and sometimes their own products aren't compatible!)

That in mind, it seems more important to me to promote open standards than Linux itself. Of course I would love to see Linux have a respectable desktop market share for better OEM support. But what good is my Linux machine if I can't even surf the web because too many web pages are written only for IE? How much of a pain is it if I have to tell everyone to resend their MS Office documents in a format I can read (OOo won't always cut it)?

And now we're seeing some cases where the US and/or state governments' are officially blessing Microsoft's otherwise incompatible data formats---this should be criminal! Public information that is avaialable electronically (either through the web or some other means) should not dictate which software is used to view, edit, modify or interact with that data.

If you go to a "IE only" government website, you're effectively seeing a tax funded advertisement for Microsoft. Your taxes paid for the software purchase, for the staff to setup and maintain that system, and now you're effectively taxed again by being forced into purchasing some (very expensive) software. And people call open source communist?!

I think we need to put some effort into a strong "inform the masses" campaign. An easy first step is to write editorials to your local paper brining to light the dangers of proprietary data formats and vendor lock-in. I was thinking about pre-scripting a lot of these letters and posting them on my website for all to use/borrow/steal/whatever. These letters also need to be sent to government representatives.

The article should contain proposed solutions. As much as we love Linux and friends, we can't beat it down peoples' throats. Some other viable thoughts:

More pressure on Microsoft to release specs on their proprietary stuff (e.g. Office, IE-only features, etc) and insist on reference implementations for these data formats.
Push for legislation that guarantees public data sytems will use an open format (e.g. the OOo format)

Finally, I think it's important to have some good, strong analogies or metaphores to illustrate the negative impact of the Microsoft monopoly (and their use of proprietray, non-compatible data formats). The most obvious analogy, to me, is as follows:

What if Ford Motor Co. owned all the roads in the U.S.? Surely they would design the roads such that only Ford vehicles worked on them. And furthermore, they would hide behind IP laws to make it illegal for anyone to make a car for their roads. What if Ford only offered one or two models of cars that actually worked on these roads? And those cars were their most expensive?

If the above scenario were true, public outrage would be rampant. Most people simply don't realize that this contrived situation is the case with Microsoft. Worse, people don't understand the implications of Microsoft literally owning your data.

Welcome to the United States of Microsoft, comrade.

Re:Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!? by TheConfusedOne · 2003-07-01 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

The contention was that Windows was getting hacked because it was the biggest target. Well, IIS isn't the biggest target and it's still getting hacked.

And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in /etc.

You can certainly expect to find some files in /etc. The big if in your scenario is rooting the box in the first place. Was there any particular 'sploit that you planned to use or are you going to just keep trying things? And, oh yeah, what if I'm running Apache on Windows? Not much in the way of /etc files then...

The point is that in the case of Apache it's an application running on a whole range of OS's. Additionally, it can run the web server with reduced or non-existant user permissions so if you hack it you're not going to get anywhere.

While there are certainly methods that can be used to perform OS typing, exploit searches, and the like the issue is size and time. A good Linux worm is going to take too much time to write unless you can find one vulnerable service that is running everywhere (BIND hacks, etc.).

MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

Summary by batkins · 2003-07-01 08:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's be serious - he's in denial.

Re:doesn't matter by Trepalium · 2003-07-01 12:51 · Score: 5, Informative

The x86 processors used a segment:offset addressing scheme, and could address a total of 1 megabyte of memory. The mapping of addresses to physical addresses was simply (segment*16)+offset (this actually gave a maximum addressable range of 1MB + 65516 bytes. This additional <64k range became known as the HMA in DOS 5+). IBM wisely reserved the upper 384kb of addressable memory for expansion, BIOS and video memory. For a system that was originally shipped with only 64 to 128kb of RAM, it left lots of room for expansion, and the EMS systems used that reserved memory area to provide a 'window' into the add-in memory. However, with most video cards occupying the region at A000h, it was impossible to use more than 640K of conventional memory.

For the record, the 8088 had an 8-bit bus, 16-bit registers, and 20-bits of address space. The 8088 is to the 8086 as the 80386SX was to the 80386DX, and few people claim that the 80386SX was a 16-bit chip, otherwise we'd be claiming that current consumer CPUs are anywhere from 64-bit to 512-bit.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.

82 of 1,194 comments (clear)