Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was a big fan of OS/2 hence why I'm reading this. I worked in Waldensoftware in the early 90s and I have to tell you, when Windows 3.1 upgrade came up individuals lined up around the store to get it. The popularity of Microsoft is not just monopolistic contracts (though those helped a lot), the popularity is that other vendors don't want to support huge chunks of the market.
Apple doesn't want the corporate market IBM couldn't even get it together with OS/2 but they didn't want the home market Linux doesn't want the computer incompetent
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Higher social classes that spend substantial time at home on their computers: Students Home users Artists IT pros
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
No it wasn't. It was a protected mode OS in many parts. Remember IBM had decided that the OS/2 1.X series had to run on 286 machines. There was still some code left in OS/2 from those days I think until OS/2 4.X
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
Nonsense. I used OS/2 back in that day. Windows 95 was far far less stable than OS/2. In fact OS/2's high point of sales was later in the 95 days. NT 3.51 / 4.0 OTOH was serious competition. I think OS/2 was far better but at least they were in the ballpark.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the problem. Though tape backup systems were pretty good from the 1980s through till mid 2000s. Real problem was they were pricey.
But I do disagree with you about the year. Think back you are either in 1982 or the drivers were bigger. Not many people bought the 5mb drives. I think you are thinking of the 20mb that got real popular around 85.
What 1986 was that? In 1986 you would have been hard pressed to find one of the old 5mb drives. Standard hard drives were 20mb drives. The ST-506 (Seagate's PC 5mb drive) was introduced in 1980. And if you are counting non PCs the IBM 2301 was 1964 with 7.25mb.
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
They both had a common parent which was public with those structures. Remember these were public APIs, no one is disputing that the structures were similar. The question is whether the implementations were copyright violations.
I don't disagree. I disagree that's there is any reason for it to move upstream now. But many disruptive technologies take time to take over successive markets.
Well Apple along with every computer manufacturer is moving away from the desktop workstation market. Most power users find a laptop + big screen is enough. And the speed of hardware advances has slowed tremendously. But the drop off during the decade has been from 2 a year to 1 a year.
What Microsoft did for the office environment was offer the ability for departments within a company to roll their own software out. They didn't have to go to the mainframe people, and so departments switched from:
a) dumb terminals on the mainframe b) Office computers using terminal emulation
Of course for small business and home personal computers offered some ability to get computers at all. All computers were unreliable in the 1980s. In the early 90s OS/2, Xenix and Unixes existed but generally didn't offer the application diversity (features).
I assume you mean more like 10-15 years ago. If you ask the people who use Microsoft if it reliable enough they indicate it is. They don't like crashes but they just reboot, no biggie. The ones who are considered a crash intolerable used different equipment.
What makes the iPad so successful is the fact that it has iOS on it. The "lightweight laptop" that does a few things very well for the person who already owns a laptop when they needed it. Big difference if it were your only laptop.
If you try and remember a little clearer. The reason you optimized config.sys and autoexec.bat was to get a little more memory so that applications you wanted to use would work. In other words
time + knowledge = needed features
What's changed is that those needed features are available without the headache.
Just to add on here by creating Darwin as a separate level they have been able to appeal to the IT / power user as well. The power of Unix when you want it and a normal business PC the other 95% of the time.
I don't think you are a troll just a bit unrealistic. There is a huge difference between what users expect from Cell phone OSes and what they expect from Computer OSes. In particular Computer OSes need to support custom applications easily.
Apple would lose their place in the IT market, the scientific market, the music market, the video market with a limited lockdown system. They would lose their margins with a high level of control and supervision for a highly capable system. Yes they would love to have the control and the homogeneity. So would Microsoft, so would Linux. Its just that the order on computers is:
a) features -- can do what I want b) reliability -- does what I want consistently c) price -- d) convenience -- does what I want easily.
For cell phones the order seems to be a) basic features b) form factor c) other features
The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively.
I suggest you look at older fashions. Tie becomes hooks become buttons. A few natural fabrics which are local start being mixed and then synthetics get invented and the whole idea of building a fabric specific to a garment. i.e. something like the cotton / polyester blend that is likely in the shirt you are wearing didn't fall out of the sky it is a result of iterative innovation.
If you listen to the talk she discusses the issue of obsolescence in fashion and argues that without copyright you have an more open culture and hence the whole industry moves together. I'm not sure that "snobbery" is what drives fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
I was a big fan of OS/2 hence why I'm reading this. I worked in Waldensoftware in the early 90s and I have to tell you, when Windows 3.1 upgrade came up individuals lined up around the store to get it. The popularity of Microsoft is not just monopolistic contracts (though those helped a lot), the popularity is that other vendors don't want to support huge chunks of the market.
Apple doesn't want the corporate market
IBM couldn't even get it together with OS/2 but they didn't want the home market
Linux doesn't want the computer incompetent
Higher social classes that spend substantial time at home on their computers:
Students
Home users
Artists
IT pros
No it wasn't. It was a protected mode OS in many parts. Remember IBM had decided that the OS/2 1.X series had to run on 286 machines. There was still some code left in OS/2 from those days I think until OS/2 4.X
Nonsense. I used OS/2 back in that day. Windows 95 was far far less stable than OS/2. In fact OS/2's high point of sales was later in the 95 days. NT 3.51 / 4.0 OTOH was serious competition. I think OS/2 was far better but at least they were in the ballpark.
Because she wasn't. She started in R rates Cinemax skin flicks that didn't have penetration. Racy yes, erotic yes, porn no.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the problem. Though tape backup systems were pretty good from the 1980s through till mid 2000s. Real problem was they were pricey.
But I do disagree with you about the year. Think back you are either in 1982 or the drivers were bigger. Not many people bought the 5mb drives. I think you are thinking of the 20mb that got real popular around 85.
I hope people reading this remember this PIA when you ask why Linux and Mac users like the ability to be able to mount file systems read only.
What 1986 was that? In 1986 you would have been hard pressed to find one of the old 5mb drives. Standard hard drives were 20mb drives. The ST-506 (Seagate's PC 5mb drive) was introduced in 1980. And if you are counting non PCs the IBM 2301 was 1964 with 7.25mb.
I'm not sure that license is valid at all, and seems to self contradict. I wouldn't use it as an example of anything other than bad lawyering.
What you want isn't really practical. Obj-C is essentially an Apple only language now. But it is possible and in fact supported:
http://www.gnustep.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_programming_language
I'd go with the DSFG, section 1
They both had a common parent which was public with those structures. Remember these were public APIs, no one is disputing that the structures were similar. The question is whether the implementations were copyright violations.
I don't disagree. I disagree that's there is any reason for it to move upstream now. But many disruptive technologies take time to take over successive markets.
Well yeah in other words if you changed the form factor to a laptops and made the apps designed for a laptop.....
Because he can't. Most apps require more user input. Going from more to less interaction:
TV -> book -> video game -> ipad -> computer
Well Apple along with every computer manufacturer is moving away from the desktop workstation market. Most power users find a laptop + big screen is enough. And the speed of hardware advances has slowed tremendously. But the drop off during the decade has been from 2 a year to 1 a year.
3/2009
1/2008
4/2007
8/2006
10/2005
4/2005
6/2004
11/2003
6/2003
1/2003
8/2002
I'd say it was features first for Microsoft.
What Microsoft did for the office environment was offer the ability for departments within a company to roll their own software out. They didn't have to go to the mainframe people, and so departments switched from:
a) dumb terminals on the mainframe
b) Office computers using terminal emulation
Of course for small business and home personal computers offered some ability to get computers at all. All computers were unreliable in the 1980s. In the early 90s OS/2, Xenix and Unixes existed but generally didn't offer the application diversity (features).
I assume you mean more like 10-15 years ago. If you ask the people who use Microsoft if it reliable enough they indicate it is. They don't like crashes but they just reboot, no biggie. The ones who are considered a crash intolerable used different equipment.
What makes the iPad so successful is the fact that it has iOS on it. The "lightweight laptop" that does a few things very well for the person who already owns a laptop when they needed it. Big difference if it were your only laptop.
If you try and remember a little clearer. The reason you optimized config.sys and autoexec.bat was to get a little more memory so that applications you wanted to use would work. In other words
time + knowledge = needed features
What's changed is that those needed features are available without the headache.
Just to add on here by creating Darwin as a separate level they have been able to appeal to the IT / power user as well. The power of Unix when you want it and a normal business PC the other 95% of the time.
I don't think you are a troll just a bit unrealistic. There is a huge difference between what users expect from Cell phone OSes and what they expect from Computer OSes. In particular Computer OSes need to support custom applications easily.
Apple would lose their place in the IT market, the scientific market, the music market, the video market with a limited lockdown system. They would lose their margins with a high level of control and supervision for a highly capable system. Yes they would love to have the control and the homogeneity. So would Microsoft, so would Linux. Its just that the order on computers is:
a) features -- can do what I want
b) reliability -- does what I want consistently
c) price --
d) convenience -- does what I want easily.
For cell phones the order seems to be
a) basic features
b) form factor
c) other features
I suggest you look at older fashions. Tie becomes hooks become buttons. A few natural fabrics which are local start being mixed and then synthetics get invented and the whole idea of building a fabric specific to a garment. i.e. something like the cotton / polyester blend that is likely in the shirt you are wearing didn't fall out of the sky it is a result of iterative innovation.
If you listen to the talk she discusses the issue of obsolescence in fashion and argues that without copyright you have an more open culture and hence the whole industry moves together. I'm not sure that "snobbery" is what drives fashion.