Well for the first couple of years the PC was out (before any clones), you might be interested to know what the single best selling expansion card for the IBM PC was... A couple of years? The first PC came out in August 81. Compaq's first clone came out in November 82. And really, the intervening 15 months isn't all that important. PCs didn't become important until they had multiple vendors and competition.
I didn't know about those Z80-CP/M cards, but I'm not surprised they existed. The PC's predecessor as the standard business desktop was an Apple II with just such a card. (One model was manufactured by Microsoft! I almost bought one once.) So that card would be a good way to carry over your old business applications.
But that card is irrevelent, as are the CP/M and UCSC pDOS versions of the PC that were also available. The IBM-blessed cofig used MS-DOS (IBM called it "PC-DOS", but that's just branding), and that's what the clones all used.
The first PC matters today because it represented the invention of the commodity computer, which we all use today. The variations like your Z80 add-in card don't matter, because they led nowhere.
As others have already pointed out, there are a lot of urban legends surrounding IBM's failure to make a deal to use CP/M (a deal that was recommended to them by Bill Gates!). But yeah, if that deal had been struck, history would have been a lot different. The one that obsesses me is that the software revision stream for the standard desktop OS would have started with a real OS, instead of that monstrous, crippled, pseudo-OS QDOS. Which would have save us all a couple of decades of grief.
Thus Bill Gates became the richest person on the planet by the blindest of blind luck. Microsoft succeeded because they had (and have) a reliable revenue stream based on the requirement that every PC on the planet run their software. Gates himself did not anticipate this: he thought he was going to get rich selling compilers! (Of course, all early Microsoft compilers totally stank, but I guess that's a moot point.) For that matter, CP/M might not have achieved the lockin that MS-DOS did: CP/M did a decent job of isolating the application software from the underlying hardware, so software written for it would have been pretty portable, unlike MS-DOS software, which couldn't even be ported to different MS-DOS based systems.
But hey, does anybody expect Mister Bill to be humble enough to admit that he became the richest man on the planet by blind luck? Nobody's that humble.
The policies you describe are pretty common in your standard corporate environment (your company is a little more extreme than most, but only a little), where you can get away with not allowing your users to customize their systems. Some might even call it a "best practice" — though I'm not willing to offer an opinion.
But I work for your basic high tech company. A lot of our people have to be able to hack their own systems in order to do their jobs. A lot of other people don't strictly need open systems, but have hacker-geek mindsets that makes working with locked-down systems very painful. Most of them would start looking for new jobs if locked out of their own systems.
True, I've never heard of IT imposing labor charges for routine stuff. But they will charge for exceptional situations that eat up a lot of their time. Policies vary, but I think a lot of IT departments will stick you if one of their people has to spend a couple hours installing an OS.
Not an issue where I work, because IT won't even look at a laptop they didn't issue. (Don't know if they reimage them when they're returned; I think they just recycle them.) They do tolerate people using laptops they didn't issue. But they'll stick you with big charges if they have to spend any time dealing with your laptop. Minimum charge for handling a malware infestation caused by a poorly protected PC or laptop: $2K.
You're assuming that that the IT department provided the laptop in the first place. In any big organization, it's pretty common for departments (and even individuals) to buy their own laptops, even if there's an IT standard model. There are any number of reasons to do this: you want a different model, you don't want to let IT "lock down" your desktop and control the software you're allowed to install, etc. Or else (and that seems likely in this case, since we're talking about a big government bureaucracy) they don't have it together enough to even have a standard laptop.
Obviously, IT can't maintain images for every laptop made. So they have to install windows from an OEM CD. That's a couple hours work.
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that people ignore malware on their systems. Obviously that's a very bad idea. But nobody's going to spend $100 to fix a system that's worth $200. They'll either get a new system or persuade themselves that it doesn't need fixing. The latter is obviously what happened here.
Actually, I didn't know this was twitter. I just don't have the memory capacity to keep track of all the dude's sockpuppets.
Anyway, the stupidity of the post stands on its own. It's based on the standard assumption that anybody who doesn't know computers must be an idiot. That's the issue I'd rather focus on. I don't really care about Twitter's sockpuppets, except when he uses them to drown out everybody else opinion.
And frankly, your obsession (and yes, it's an obsession) with twitter it getting pretty old.
No, as in "Nuclear power is safer than Ted Kennedy's car". Whenever you debate nuclear power, somebody says something like that, as if TK moral failings were at all relevant to the conversation. Since we've managed to drag TK into another totally unrelated discussion, we might as do it right!
Good to know they researched heavily before firing him. It's called Zero Tolerance.
At my company when re-deploying hardware like a laptop it is standard to wipe it completely and load a ghosted image. That assumes that IT actually controls deployment of all laptops. I think that's pretty rare. More typically, re-deploying a used laptop means, "Bill quit, you want his laptop?"
Who WOULDN'T do at least as much? Most places, I'm afraid.
From a purely technical point of view, a clean install is good advice in this situation (and many others!) But it's not something an ordinary user can do. This guy certainly doesn't have the expertise, not if he was using such a thoroughly compromised system. So he has to turn it over to the IT department, which then charges his department $100 or more for the service. That's approaching the total value of the laptop if its been around for any length of time.
No, this conversation exists because of what you think you know. Since you obviously don't think very well, that proves nothing.
Of course, my own intelligence is subject to doubt. After all, I'm wasting all this time arguing with an idiot who will never, ever admit that he's wrong, not matter what the argument.
"Years of information gathering" and you can't cite a single example of the U.S. "bending over backwards" to accommodate the Muslim world? I think that admission by itself shows what an ignorant fool you are.
I don't care about the dude's karma. Slashdot karma is not a reward or a punishment, it's a tool to help those of us who want to have a serious conversation ignore the lamers. Your obsession with this particular lamer is making it a lot harder to do that.
Oh, yeah, I must be an anti-MS zealot, because you don't agree with my analysis of the support issues. That's why I run everything on Linux...
No wait a minute. (Stops to look at desktop.) My computer is running Vista! My god, how did that happen? Oh yeah, I remember, I analyzed my needs and decided it was the best solution, despite its (many) shortcomings. Of course it helps that I'm a hardcore techie and can provide my own tech support. But when a friend or family member asks me if they should buy a Vista system, I tell them to forget it. Because you know who they're going to call when something goes wrong...
It's true that configuring a new application to run under Wine can be a nightmare. But most people run a few standard applications, and the heavy lifting to make them run smoothly under Wine has already been done.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know about those Z80-CP/M cards, but I'm not surprised they existed. The PC's predecessor as the standard business desktop was an Apple II with just such a card. (One model was manufactured by Microsoft! I almost bought one once.) So that card would be a good way to carry over your old business applications.
But that card is irrevelent, as are the CP/M and UCSC pDOS versions of the PC that were also available. The IBM-blessed cofig used MS-DOS (IBM called it "PC-DOS", but that's just branding), and that's what the clones all used.
The first PC matters today because it represented the invention of the commodity computer, which we all use today. The variations like your Z80 add-in card don't matter, because they led nowhere.
As others have already pointed out, there are a lot of urban legends surrounding IBM's failure to make a deal to use CP/M (a deal that was recommended to them by Bill Gates!). But yeah, if that deal had been struck, history would have been a lot different. The one that obsesses me is that the software revision stream for the standard desktop OS would have started with a real OS, instead of that monstrous, crippled, pseudo-OS QDOS. Which would have save us all a couple of decades of grief.
Thus Bill Gates became the richest person on the planet by the blindest of blind luck. Microsoft succeeded because they had (and have) a reliable revenue stream based on the requirement that every PC on the planet run their software. Gates himself did not anticipate this: he thought he was going to get rich selling compilers! (Of course, all early Microsoft compilers totally stank, but I guess that's a moot point.) For that matter, CP/M might not have achieved the lockin that MS-DOS did: CP/M did a decent job of isolating the application software from the underlying hardware, so software written for it would have been pretty portable, unlike MS-DOS software, which couldn't even be ported to different MS-DOS based systems.
But hey, does anybody expect Mister Bill to be humble enough to admit that he became the richest man on the planet by blind luck? Nobody's that humble.
Dude, with your "I know it because I know it, and I don't have to prove it" attitude, you're in no position to call others "mindless sheep".
The policies you describe are pretty common in your standard corporate environment (your company is a little more extreme than most, but only a little), where you can get away with not allowing your users to customize their systems. Some might even call it a "best practice" — though I'm not willing to offer an opinion.
But I work for your basic high tech company. A lot of our people have to be able to hack their own systems in order to do their jobs. A lot of other people don't strictly need open systems, but have hacker-geek mindsets that makes working with locked-down systems very painful. Most of them would start looking for new jobs if locked out of their own systems.
What, no come back? Has it finally dawned on you that an opinion without evidence is meaningless?
Can't be as bad as Chicago. I've often heard people say that they wanted to be buried there so they can continue to participate in civic affairs!
True, I've never heard of IT imposing labor charges for routine stuff. But they will charge for exceptional situations that eat up a lot of their time. Policies vary, but I think a lot of IT departments will stick you if one of their people has to spend a couple hours installing an OS.
Not an issue where I work, because IT won't even look at a laptop they didn't issue. (Don't know if they reimage them when they're returned; I think they just recycle them.) They do tolerate people using laptops they didn't issue. But they'll stick you with big charges if they have to spend any time dealing with your laptop. Minimum charge for handling a malware infestation caused by a poorly protected PC or laptop: $2K.
Opening goatse.cx is usually unintentional, but it's almost never accidental!
Well, yeah, that's an approach. But somebody who lacks the skill to re-install the OS probably also lacks the knowledge to know that it's a good idea.
Why is that weird? Can't a girl vote for her boyfriend?
You're assuming that that the IT department provided the laptop in the first place. In any big organization, it's pretty common for departments (and even individuals) to buy their own laptops, even if there's an IT standard model. There are any number of reasons to do this: you want a different model, you don't want to let IT "lock down" your desktop and control the software you're allowed to install, etc. Or else (and that seems likely in this case, since we're talking about a big government bureaucracy) they don't have it together enough to even have a standard laptop.
Obviously, IT can't maintain images for every laptop made. So they have to install windows from an OEM CD. That's a couple hours work.
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing that people ignore malware on their systems. Obviously that's a very bad idea. But nobody's going to spend $100 to fix a system that's worth $200. They'll either get a new system or persuade themselves that it doesn't need fixing. The latter is obviously what happened here.
Actually, I didn't know this was twitter. I just don't have the memory capacity to keep track of all the dude's sockpuppets.
Anyway, the stupidity of the post stands on its own. It's based on the standard assumption that anybody who doesn't know computers must be an idiot. That's the issue I'd rather focus on. I don't really care about Twitter's sockpuppets, except when he uses them to drown out everybody else opinion.
And frankly, your obsession (and yes, it's an obsession) with twitter it getting pretty old.
Dude, whatever you do, don't go to work for IT. They already have too many assholes like you.
No, as in "Nuclear power is safer than Ted Kennedy's car". Whenever you debate nuclear power, somebody says something like that, as if TK moral failings were at all relevant to the conversation. Since we've managed to drag TK into another totally unrelated discussion, we might as do it right!
Isn't anyone going mention poor Mary Jo Kopechne? I believe it's mandatory when trashing Ted Kennedy.
From a purely technical point of view, a clean install is good advice in this situation (and many others!) But it's not something an ordinary user can do. This guy certainly doesn't have the expertise, not if he was using such a thoroughly compromised system. So he has to turn it over to the IT department, which then charges his department $100 or more for the service. That's approaching the total value of the laptop if its been around for any length of time.
Jeez, you have a short memory. I'm simply echoing your argument back at you, and now you're echoing my argument back at me.
I do have reason to believe your wrong, but if you don't have to cite examples of what you believe, why do I?
No, this conversation exists because of what you think you know. Since you obviously don't think very well, that proves nothing.
Of course, my own intelligence is subject to doubt. After all, I'm wasting all this time arguing with an idiot who will never, ever admit that he's wrong, not matter what the argument.
No, it's claiming you spent years gathering information, and not knowing any of it.
Enough with your "the dog ate my homework" logic.
"Years of information gathering" and you can't cite a single example of the U.S. "bending over backwards" to accommodate the Muslim world? I think that admission by itself shows what an ignorant fool you are.
I don't care about the dude's karma. Slashdot karma is not a reward or a punishment, it's a tool to help those of us who want to have a serious conversation ignore the lamers. Your obsession with this particular lamer is making it a lot harder to do that.
Oh, yeah, I must be an anti-MS zealot, because you don't agree with my analysis of the support issues. That's why I run everything on Linux...
No wait a minute. (Stops to look at desktop.) My computer is running Vista! My god, how did that happen? Oh yeah, I remember, I analyzed my needs and decided it was the best solution, despite its (many) shortcomings. Of course it helps that I'm a hardcore techie and can provide my own tech support. But when a friend or family member asks me if they should buy a Vista system, I tell them to forget it. Because you know who they're going to call when something goes wrong...
It's true that configuring a new application to run under Wine can be a nightmare. But most people run a few standard applications, and the heavy lifting to make them run smoothly under Wine has already been done.