Millions of users switch from Windows to OS/X running on Intel. Apple's arrogance begins to assert itself once again. They remove support for certain kinds of "unapproved" hardware because Steve decides it's time to move people ahead.
Of course, then the famous Apple greed asserts itself. Steve starts to realize that he could make a lot more money if people bought only Apple hardware. Heck, he did it once with the clones, why not again? So he stops support of all non-Apple hardware. The next version of OS/X is not compatible with Intel hardware anymore. Millions scream, but what can they do? Many decide to upgrade by going to Apple hardware.
Meanwhile, the people who remember history and didn't jump on Apple's "special deal" silently laugh. And cry. And wonder why anyone would've ever trusted Apple ever again.
Er, dude, you don't have to be root to send e-mails or delete the user's files. Perhaps you should "push off" until you get that special clue module installed.
I'm with you on an external keyboard, but actually I wouldn't mind a pop-up picture of a keyboard that I could type on. If I was just using this in my lap while I watched TV or something, an external keyboard would be pretty awkward. But a little popup job would be nice for the rare times you want to enter a URL (or perhaps enter a post on Slashdot:) ).
Yeah!! Now that's what I'm talkin' about! It's hard to tell how thick they are, though. I hope those aren't just mock-up "concept" units and they are real prototypes.
OK, I admit I stopped reading after the Palm-sized device, and didn't realize their was another unit on that same page (I thought the other picture was just another view of the Palm unit).
Still, my rant stands. I still want a web pad with my specs!
If I want a Palm, I'll get a palm. When I heard "web pad", I pictured a notebook-sized unit with an 800x600 or 1024x768 screen, say about 1/2" thick that I could toss around the living room. At least, I think that was the unit described at the (in)famous Transmeta coming out party.
This is totally worthless for surfing the web. The technology is there for a real web pad... my IBM laptop's screen is only a half-inch thick. Put the electronics and battery around the sides of the screen and boom! instant web pad, the way it should be.
Come on Crusoe licensees, get a clue. If you want to make a Palm, make a palm. But don't call it a web pad when the SCREEN IS TOO SMALL TO SURF THE WEB.
Instability . Couldn't the government point to much more stable operating systems,...
No, because those exist, and the consumer chose not to buy them. Ironically, the instability is due to the #1 feature that people like about Windows: Compatibility. If you want stability, get NT (or Win2K). If you want compatibility, get Win/98.
Lack of Security . How about the many recent Outlook exploits?
The fact is, Security is the responsibility of the user. It's hard to argue that software is too powerful, and needs to be dumbed down for the average user. Not to mention that every operating system has security exploits (including Linux, ironically with a story about it just today).
Upgrading. What about the upgrade cycle? Pay for the OS, then pay for each bug-fixing service pack and upgrade?
First of all, MS releases most bug fixes for free. But other than that, every manufacturer of operating systems charges for upgrades. Heck, look at Apple if you want to see about charging for trivial upgrades, except they do it way more often.
MSFT Tax. And then there's the harm to non-consumers. Ie, the MSFT tax.
This is a valid point. The only problem is that when 99.9% of computers sold to consumers WANT windows, it's hard to argue that the masses have been harmed by a grumpy 0.1%.
--
Re:Can I state the obvious?
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
Why does Michael earn a special serving of your contempt?
There is a difference, subtle perhaps, between writing about something, and writing of something as an expert. Not to beat this example some more, but Katz writes about technology, not of technology as an expert. I am interested in how Katz thinks technology affects society, because everyone is qualified to write about that. I would have total contempt for Katz if he tried to lecture me about the relative merits of C and Java.
If Michael wanted to write an editorial about the effects of a particular law, and what he doesn't like about it, that's one thing. But that's not what he's doing. He's jumping back and forth across the line, lecturing about precedents within the law as if he understands them. Exactly as if Katz tried to lecture me about C vs Java.
That's one thing. But I also have contempt for him because he doesn't make any effort to understand all sides of an issue. Not a crime, many writers are guilty of the same sort of blindness, but he is particularly arrogant about his blindness, which annoys me.
Personally, I think us "common folk" ought to discuss law more often. People need to be aware of thier rights and of the laws and how those laws affect them.
I completely agree. But...
If people tried to read and interpret the law on thier own, they would be less suceptable to illegal scams and dishonest/incompetant lawers.
I somewhat agree with this, but that's also like saying, "If people had a better understanding of technology, they would be less susceptible to scam consultants." Which is true -- but impractical. The more knowledge the better, but at some level you have to trust an expert when you are talking about an extremely complex subject. And the law is arguably far more complex than technology.
now you need a lawer just to post a story on slashdot?
I don't know; call me crazy, but I actually enjoy getting real, factual information from an expert in a field. I also enjoy hearing analysis of the effects of laws on society. One requires an expert. The other does not. Unfortunately, Michael feels qualified to do both.
--
Re:Can I state the obvious?
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
I'm afraid that no matter how you put it, this is an ad homineum attack. You do not debate the merits of the writing
What I said was that based on past experience, he does not write balanced articles. Obviously, this is an attack, in the sense that I am being personally critical. It is not a flame, however, because I am not saying "he is stupid" or something, I gave very specific criticisms. Criticising is not flaming.
you instead focus on the writer's qualifications or percieved lack thereof.
Exactly. Those are my specific criticisms. As I pointed out, just as I wouldn't trust Katz to give an opinion on C vs Java, I don't trust Michael to give opinions on matters of law, particularly when he has shown no aptitude for writing about it in the past.
The law is an extremely complex subject. I might even say far more complex than technology. Michael is free to write about his opinions, obviously, but I am only pointing out that his opinions are very likely made with a shallow understanding of all sides of the issues.
I guess what specifically galls me is not that he "dares" to write about law when he is unqualified, it's that the tone of the article makes it sound like he believes he is qualified. Things like making specific references to law precedents.
First of all, this is not a flame. But I think this is important to point out.
Michael is not a lawyer. Use this article as food for thought, but in my opinion, he has not show in the past very much understanding of the law, and quite frankly, he is so biased and paranoid that very often he does not see or explore all sides of an issue.
This is an important issue, and I applaud Slashdot for posting links to various articles. But I would caution people against assuming that the whole story is being presented.
Frankly, if Michael is going to start quoting law, then I think he should have stated very clearly that he's not a lawyer. Of course, if he really wanted to do a good job on this article, he could have spoken to some real experts on this subject and given us some real insight into the issue.
But I guess that would have meant admitting that he wasn't an expert on the law.
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but it's the same thing when Katz starts talking about Technology. There, we can at least tell when he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If Slashdot wants to editorialize about issues of law, wouldn't be a good idea to get some experts on retainer? You guys have the money. Use it!
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
No, you are wrong. It's an opinion -- one judge's opinion and the government's. It happens to be an opinion of someone with a lot of power, but it's still an opinion. If someone robs me, that's a provable fact because there is physical evidence. There is no physical evidence involved here. Monopolies are designated by completely nebulous rules.
Ah man, The Offspring backed off. They should have told Napster to shove it and kept the profits.
On the other hand, perhaps this is the solution to Napster. Perhaps Napster, Inc. could go to the record companies and say they will donate all of their proceeds to charity.:)
Well, there is a "huge mass of content", there is no question about it. But by far the really good content is financially supported.
This really shouldn't be that hard to believe. If a site has really good content, that is going to attract people. The more people you attract, the more expensive it is to run the servers. At some point, the "labor of love" gets to be a lot more labor, and a lot less love. At that point, advertising is a reasonable way to defer the cost while still providing the content.
To be honest, I don't understand why so many people are anti-advertising. Banner ads take up very little space, and they pay for a lot of great content. Insisting that a webmaster pay out of his/her own pocket rather than allowing them to toss up a few banner ads seems unbelievably selfish to me. "Not only must you provide this great content to me at no cost, but I also insist that you pay for it yourself rather than have me wait an extra half second for a page to load.".
This, as I say, is pretty damn interesting. Katz is no fool -- he just writes like one. Why not pursue this notion?
While I don't think Katz is a fool, I think you're giving him too much credit. While I think there is occasionally a point in his writing, you have brilliantly illustrated Katz' biggest weakness: his tendency to overwrite, overblow, overstate, well, pretty much over-everything.
When I read a Katz article, I feel like I am wading through a sea of molasses, waves of thick prose washing over me, while I try to make out that faint searchlight of the point. Sometimes I manage to swim to shore, exhausted, only to find a flashlight mounted on a stick. Other times, I simply drown as I die alone, in confusion.
[since we're talking about literary prose, I thought I would throw out some vivid imagery.:) ]
Take them to small claims court. Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean they automatically can do anything they want (suppose it said they had a right to one of your children -- just because you signed it and didn't see it doesn't mean it's a reasonable clause). Off the subject, did you know that if you break something in a store, you're not liable even if it says "you hold, you break it, you pay for it"? It's part of the cost of doing business (unless they can prove you did it intentionally or something). Anyway...
Small claims is super easy and very inexpensive. If you truly weren't being a public nuisance, I'd bet the judge would rule that they needed to take reasonable measures to contact you, particularly if they had your license plate on file. Take lots of pictures, look like you put some effort into proving your case, dress nice, and you'll probably win. Small claims judges are generally pretty sympathetic to the little guy.
Exactly. If all of this stuff was executed in a clean, sane fashion, Windows would be a pretty cool operating system. You can kind of see where they're aiming at, and they sometimes get close enough to excite you, but it always seems to fall short of where it should be.
Pirro said the message traffic Garon allegedly sent through Market Vision, a graphics studio company in Irvington, was so heavy that it crashed the company's internal network, causing damage in repairs and business downtime.
What? I can understand that maybe the mail system would become clogged and cease to function. But exactly what "repairs" would be necessary? The guy claims $18,000 in damages! If it's that hard for their network guys to clear out some mail, then they guy has bigger problems that a spammer using his mail system.
Most of Apple's innovation is in hardware. If you look strictly at OS software (which is the subject of the article), they really haven't done much. You mention a couple of areas, but what about the bread-and-butter areas? I've mentioned preemptive multitasking, but their VM system is totally brain damaged (most people turn it off). And what about memory protection, for god's sake?
I guess the point is that if Microsoft could move their user base from DOS to Win/2000 while (mostly) protecting compatability (think about that!), Apple should've been able to, also. And they actually did try with Copland, but we all know what happened there.
Frankly, I think Apple gets way too much credit for innovation, particularly in software. Granted, they have done some things, but a lot of people seem to think it's some fountain of mana and it's just not. Most of Apple's innovation was in the 80s.
Microsoft actually gets kind of bad rap when it comes to innovation, and they really don't get pegged for where they really do screw up.
I would say that Microsoft's goals for their software are very ambitious. Backward compatibility is given a lot of priority, which is what leads to the instability of Win/98. However, the miracle of Win/98 is that it works at all, considering the huge amount of hardware variability that it needs to work with.
Give Microsoft credit for attempting to creating an object-oriented operation system, while trying to maintain compatibility with the past. If you look at the internals, there is a considerable amount of power in their object methods.
Now the bad part: Microsoft is very ambitious is what they are trying to do. The trouble is that they have been poor at actually pulling it off. The unreliability of Windows is directly tied to over-complexity of what they are trying to pull off. I think if Microsoft actually slowed down a little bit and put a little more thought into what they're doing, instead of just "growing" the software and ending up with a rat's nest, they would be a lot better off.
On the hand, an argument can be made that Microsoft has succeeded because they don't dry-dock their software forever. They get it out into the world ASAP so they can get maximal amount of feedback (somewhat similar to "release early, release often"). Granted, releases have often been late (ala Linux, I might point out), but they get into the hands of Beta testers very quickly. And no one listens to their customer base like Microsoft.
I detest working with Microsoft's APIs because there is clearly so little engineering thought put into them. However, it's undeniable that there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm put into them, if you know what I mean. Microsoft is a very ambitious company when it comes to trying to include advanced technology in their products, with a friendly face. Far more than Apple, I might point out, who has taken 16 years to give us preemptive multitasking (technically, they still haven't, of course).
Which proves that no matter how much a zealot pushes dogma on people who don't know any better (i.e., the owner), the people who have to use the software every day are going to win out over the people who don't have to use it.
Wouldn't it be a great world is everyone just used the best solution, rather than the one for religious reasons? There is a reason that MS/Office won. And it's not because Microsoft is evil.
The problem with WordPerfect is also what it's defenders say is it's strength -- that stupid embedded code method of word processing. The fact that it has a "reveal codes" function is the biggest evidence for its mis-design.
Presentation should be separate from content. That's why Word uses "styles", which are heirarchical and inheritable to describe presentation. They are way more logical and FAR more powerful.
Name me one succesful computer platform that has tried to discourage development of free software.
Apple computer.:)
Now, that's either proves your point or disproves it, depending on how you look at it. Nobody abused their developers like Apple, yet they have miraculously managed to survive.
I'm with you, by the way, but I had to throw that out.
They are bigger while they can do less. Size is very important it does not only save you harddrive space but also make things work much faster. That`s why an 50 mhz 68060 powered Amiga running AmigaOS feels faster than a 600 mhz PIII running Windows.
Besides the fact that that's a huge exaggeration, so what? Again, how does the average user even know the difference? The applications are almost instantaneous as it is.
And you say "do less". What exactly "less" are modern operating systems doing exactly?
Also Amiga will be targetting very small mobile appliances which don`t have much memory and super fast processors. Imagine playing games like online multiplayer quake at full speed on your mobile phone.
That all sounds well and good, but there is a distinct lack of specifics here. What is this Amiga OS going to do that Palm or PocketPC won't? It's easy to say something will be the "ultimate OS" when it doesn't even exist.
And what does the speed of Quake have to do with the operating system? [answer: very little]. The smallest OS in the world is not going to make 3D mathematics run faster.
The one area you have a point is in boot speed, but most people including me leave their computers on all the time anyway.
You obviously have a lot of nostalgia for the Amiga. There is no question is was very advanced -- in its day. But you don't seem to be able to define exactly what this new platform is going to do for the average user. Computers are already fast. They do everything the Amiga did, and far, far more (let's not even talk about protected or virtual memory). No one except engineers care about what's under the hood (and even then, most engineers don't even care).
This is the problem I have. No one seems to be able to define "how is it going to be better". One thing I will guarantee you is the days of writing an OS completely in assembly are over (although, parts are certainly still assembly).
The Amiga community is supporting the classic Amiga because there was no viable elegant non bloated alternative available. Now the developers need something new as the advances in processing power and memory chips were able to compensate the inferior technologies in the current PC hardware architectures and Bloatware OSes.
OK, I'd like to hit this "bloatware" issue head-on. What is it about modern OSs that you dislike so much?
Size? Who cares in an era of 20 gig drives and 1 Ghz processors? I run Win/2000 on a Celeron 466/128 meg of memory. Things run instantaneously.
Features? What features do you advocate cutting? I like having a full-featured operating system. What benefit is there to stripping everything down?
I simply don't understand this longing for a stripped-down operating system. Help me out. What will a "non-bloated" new-style AmigaOS offer me, as a desktop user, that Win/2000 won't? [and don't say "reliability" because Win2K is pretty rock solid]
P.S. I do prefer Linux/Unix as a server OS, but I'm focusing on the desktop for this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of users switch from Windows to OS/X running on Intel. Apple's arrogance begins to assert itself once again. They remove support for certain kinds of "unapproved" hardware because Steve decides it's time to move people ahead.
Of course, then the famous Apple greed asserts itself. Steve starts to realize that he could make a lot more money if people bought only Apple hardware. Heck, he did it once with the clones, why not again? So he stops support of all non-Apple hardware. The next version of OS/X is not compatible with Intel hardware anymore. Millions scream, but what can they do? Many decide to upgrade by going to Apple hardware.
Meanwhile, the people who remember history and didn't jump on Apple's "special deal" silently laugh. And cry. And wonder why anyone would've ever trusted Apple ever again.
--
Er, dude, you don't have to be root to send e-mails or delete the user's files. Perhaps you should "push off" until you get that special clue module installed.
--
I'm with you on an external keyboard, but actually I wouldn't mind a pop-up picture of a keyboard that I could type on. If I was just using this in my lap while I watched TV or something, an external keyboard would be pretty awkward. But a little popup job would be nice for the rare times you want to enter a URL (or perhaps enter a post on Slashdot :) ).
--
Yeah!! Now that's what I'm talkin' about! It's hard to tell how thick they are, though. I hope those aren't just mock-up "concept" units and they are real prototypes.
--
OK, I admit I stopped reading after the Palm-sized device, and didn't realize their was another unit on that same page (I thought the other picture was just another view of the Palm unit).
Still, my rant stands. I still want a web pad with my specs!
--
[rant gun to full power]
If I want a Palm, I'll get a palm. When I heard "web pad", I pictured a notebook-sized unit with an 800x600 or 1024x768 screen, say about 1/2" thick that I could toss around the living room. At least, I think that was the unit described at the (in)famous Transmeta coming out party.
This is totally worthless for surfing the web. The technology is there for a real web pad... my IBM laptop's screen is only a half-inch thick. Put the electronics and battery around the sides of the screen and boom! instant web pad, the way it should be.
Come on Crusoe licensees, get a clue. If you want to make a Palm, make a palm. But don't call it a web pad when the SCREEN IS TOO SMALL TO SURF THE WEB.
--
Instability . Couldn't the government point to much more stable operating systems,...
No, because those exist, and the consumer chose not to buy them. Ironically, the instability is due to the #1 feature that people like about Windows: Compatibility. If you want stability, get NT (or Win2K). If you want compatibility, get Win/98.
Lack of Security . How about the many recent Outlook exploits?
The fact is, Security is the responsibility of the user. It's hard to argue that software is too powerful, and needs to be dumbed down for the average user. Not to mention that every operating system has security exploits (including Linux, ironically with a story about it just today).
Upgrading. What about the upgrade cycle? Pay for the OS, then pay for each bug-fixing service pack and upgrade?
First of all, MS releases most bug fixes for free. But other than that, every manufacturer of operating systems charges for upgrades. Heck, look at Apple if you want to see about charging for trivial upgrades, except they do it way more often.
MSFT Tax. And then there's the harm to non-consumers. Ie, the MSFT tax.
This is a valid point. The only problem is that when 99.9% of computers sold to consumers WANT windows, it's hard to argue that the masses have been harmed by a grumpy 0.1%.
--
Why does Michael earn a special serving of your contempt?
There is a difference, subtle perhaps, between writing about something, and writing of something as an expert. Not to beat this example some more, but Katz writes about technology, not of technology as an expert. I am interested in how Katz thinks technology affects society, because everyone is qualified to write about that. I would have total contempt for Katz if he tried to lecture me about the relative merits of C and Java.
If Michael wanted to write an editorial about the effects of a particular law, and what he doesn't like about it, that's one thing. But that's not what he's doing. He's jumping back and forth across the line, lecturing about precedents within the law as if he understands them. Exactly as if Katz tried to lecture me about C vs Java.
That's one thing. But I also have contempt for him because he doesn't make any effort to understand all sides of an issue. Not a crime, many writers are guilty of the same sort of blindness, but he is particularly arrogant about his blindness, which annoys me.
Personally, I think us "common folk" ought to discuss law more often. People need to be aware of thier rights and of the laws and how those laws affect them.
I completely agree. But...
If people tried to read and interpret the law on thier own, they would be less suceptable to illegal scams and dishonest/incompetant lawers.
I somewhat agree with this, but that's also like saying, "If people had a better understanding of technology, they would be less susceptible to scam consultants." Which is true -- but impractical. The more knowledge the better, but at some level you have to trust an expert when you are talking about an extremely complex subject. And the law is arguably far more complex than technology.
now you need a lawer just to post a story on slashdot?
I don't know; call me crazy, but I actually enjoy getting real, factual information from an expert in a field. I also enjoy hearing analysis of the effects of laws on society. One requires an expert. The other does not. Unfortunately, Michael feels qualified to do both.
--
I'm afraid that no matter how you put it, this is an ad homineum attack. You do not debate the merits of the writing
What I said was that based on past experience, he does not write balanced articles. Obviously, this is an attack, in the sense that I am being personally critical. It is not a flame, however, because I am not saying "he is stupid" or something, I gave very specific criticisms. Criticising is not flaming.
you instead focus on the writer's qualifications or percieved lack thereof.
Exactly. Those are my specific criticisms. As I pointed out, just as I wouldn't trust Katz to give an opinion on C vs Java, I don't trust Michael to give opinions on matters of law, particularly when he has shown no aptitude for writing about it in the past.
The law is an extremely complex subject. I might even say far more complex than technology. Michael is free to write about his opinions, obviously, but I am only pointing out that his opinions are very likely made with a shallow understanding of all sides of the issues.
I guess what specifically galls me is not that he "dares" to write about law when he is unqualified, it's that the tone of the article makes it sound like he believes he is qualified. Things like making specific references to law precedents.
Bottom line, he has a bad case of hubris.
--
First of all, this is not a flame. But I think this is important to point out.
Michael is not a lawyer. Use this article as food for thought, but in my opinion, he has not show in the past very much understanding of the law, and quite frankly, he is so biased and paranoid that very often he does not see or explore all sides of an issue.
This is an important issue, and I applaud Slashdot for posting links to various articles. But I would caution people against assuming that the whole story is being presented.
Frankly, if Michael is going to start quoting law, then I think he should have stated very clearly that he's not a lawyer. Of course, if he really wanted to do a good job on this article, he could have spoken to some real experts on this subject and given us some real insight into the issue.
But I guess that would have meant admitting that he wasn't an expert on the law.
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but it's the same thing when Katz starts talking about Technology. There, we can at least tell when he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If Slashdot wants to editorialize about issues of law, wouldn't be a good idea to get some experts on retainer? You guys have the money. Use it!
--
Microsoft needs to be punished for past behavior, regardless of their position now
Once again, it must be stated: Antitrust laws ARE NOT PUNATIVE. They are remedial.
--
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
No, you are wrong. It's an opinion -- one judge's opinion and the government's. It happens to be an opinion of someone with a lot of power, but it's still an opinion. If someone robs me, that's a provable fact because there is physical evidence. There is no physical evidence involved here. Monopolies are designated by completely nebulous rules.
--
Ah man, The Offspring backed off. They should have told Napster to shove it and kept the profits.
On the other hand, perhaps this is the solution to Napster. Perhaps Napster, Inc. could go to the record companies and say they will donate all of their proceeds to charity. :)
--
Well, there is a "huge mass of content", there is no question about it. But by far the really good content is financially supported.
This really shouldn't be that hard to believe. If a site has really good content, that is going to attract people. The more people you attract, the more expensive it is to run the servers. At some point, the "labor of love" gets to be a lot more labor, and a lot less love. At that point, advertising is a reasonable way to defer the cost while still providing the content.
To be honest, I don't understand why so many people are anti-advertising. Banner ads take up very little space, and they pay for a lot of great content. Insisting that a webmaster pay out of his/her own pocket rather than allowing them to toss up a few banner ads seems unbelievably selfish to me. "Not only must you provide this great content to me at no cost, but I also insist that you pay for it yourself rather than have me wait an extra half second for a page to load.".
--
This, as I say, is pretty damn interesting. Katz is no fool -- he just writes like one. Why not pursue this notion?
While I don't think Katz is a fool, I think you're giving him too much credit. While I think there is occasionally a point in his writing, you have brilliantly illustrated Katz' biggest weakness: his tendency to overwrite, overblow, overstate, well, pretty much over-everything.
When I read a Katz article, I feel like I am wading through a sea of molasses, waves of thick prose washing over me, while I try to make out that faint searchlight of the point. Sometimes I manage to swim to shore, exhausted, only to find a flashlight mounted on a stick. Other times, I simply drown as I die alone, in confusion.
[since we're talking about literary prose, I thought I would throw out some vivid imagery. :) ]
--
Take them to small claims court. Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean they automatically can do anything they want (suppose it said they had a right to one of your children -- just because you signed it and didn't see it doesn't mean it's a reasonable clause). Off the subject, did you know that if you break something in a store, you're not liable even if it says "you hold, you break it, you pay for it"? It's part of the cost of doing business (unless they can prove you did it intentionally or something). Anyway...
Small claims is super easy and very inexpensive. If you truly weren't being a public nuisance, I'd bet the judge would rule that they needed to take reasonable measures to contact you, particularly if they had your license plate on file. Take lots of pictures, look like you put some effort into proving your case, dress nice, and you'll probably win. Small claims judges are generally pretty sympathetic to the little guy.
--
Exactly. If all of this stuff was executed in a clean, sane fashion, Windows would be a pretty cool operating system. You can kind of see where they're aiming at, and they sometimes get close enough to excite you, but it always seems to fall short of where it should be.
--
Quote from the article:
Pirro said the message traffic Garon allegedly sent through Market Vision, a graphics studio company in Irvington, was so heavy that it crashed the company's internal network, causing damage in repairs and business downtime.
What? I can understand that maybe the mail system would become clogged and cease to function. But exactly what "repairs" would be necessary? The guy claims $18,000 in damages! If it's that hard for their network guys to clear out some mail, then they guy has bigger problems that a spammer using his mail system.
--
Most of Apple's innovation is in hardware. If you look strictly at OS software (which is the subject of the article), they really haven't done much. You mention a couple of areas, but what about the bread-and-butter areas? I've mentioned preemptive multitasking, but their VM system is totally brain damaged (most people turn it off). And what about memory protection, for god's sake?
I guess the point is that if Microsoft could move their user base from DOS to Win/2000 while (mostly) protecting compatability (think about that!), Apple should've been able to, also. And they actually did try with Copland, but we all know what happened there.
Frankly, I think Apple gets way too much credit for innovation, particularly in software. Granted, they have done some things, but a lot of people seem to think it's some fountain of mana and it's just not. Most of Apple's innovation was in the 80s.
--
Microsoft actually gets kind of bad rap when it comes to innovation, and they really don't get pegged for where they really do screw up.
I would say that Microsoft's goals for their software are very ambitious. Backward compatibility is given a lot of priority, which is what leads to the instability of Win/98. However, the miracle of Win/98 is that it works at all, considering the huge amount of hardware variability that it needs to work with.
Give Microsoft credit for attempting to creating an object-oriented operation system, while trying to maintain compatibility with the past. If you look at the internals, there is a considerable amount of power in their object methods.
Now the bad part: Microsoft is very ambitious is what they are trying to do. The trouble is that they have been poor at actually pulling it off. The unreliability of Windows is directly tied to over-complexity of what they are trying to pull off. I think if Microsoft actually slowed down a little bit and put a little more thought into what they're doing, instead of just "growing" the software and ending up with a rat's nest, they would be a lot better off.
On the hand, an argument can be made that Microsoft has succeeded because they don't dry-dock their software forever. They get it out into the world ASAP so they can get maximal amount of feedback (somewhat similar to "release early, release often"). Granted, releases have often been late (ala Linux, I might point out), but they get into the hands of Beta testers very quickly. And no one listens to their customer base like Microsoft.
I detest working with Microsoft's APIs because there is clearly so little engineering thought put into them. However, it's undeniable that there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm put into them, if you know what I mean. Microsoft is a very ambitious company when it comes to trying to include advanced technology in their products, with a friendly face. Far more than Apple, I might point out, who has taken 16 years to give us preemptive multitasking (technically, they still haven't, of course).
--
Which proves that no matter how much a zealot pushes dogma on people who don't know any better (i.e., the owner), the people who have to use the software every day are going to win out over the people who don't have to use it.
Wouldn't it be a great world is everyone just used the best solution, rather than the one for religious reasons? There is a reason that MS/Office won. And it's not because Microsoft is evil.
--
The problem with WordPerfect is also what it's defenders say is it's strength -- that stupid embedded code method of word processing. The fact that it has a "reveal codes" function is the biggest evidence for its mis-design.
Presentation should be separate from content. That's why Word uses "styles", which are heirarchical and inheritable to describe presentation. They are way more logical and FAR more powerful.
--
Name me one succesful computer platform that has tried to discourage development of free software.
Apple computer. :)
Now, that's either proves your point or disproves it, depending on how you look at it. Nobody abused their developers like Apple, yet they have miraculously managed to survive.
I'm with you, by the way, but I had to throw that out.
--
They are bigger while they can do less. Size is very important it does not only save you harddrive space but also make things work much faster. That`s why an 50 mhz 68060 powered Amiga running AmigaOS feels faster than a 600 mhz PIII running Windows.
Besides the fact that that's a huge exaggeration, so what? Again, how does the average user even know the difference? The applications are almost instantaneous as it is.
And you say "do less". What exactly "less" are modern operating systems doing exactly?
Also Amiga will be targetting very small mobile appliances which don`t have much memory and super fast processors. Imagine playing games like online multiplayer quake at full speed on your mobile phone.
That all sounds well and good, but there is a distinct lack of specifics here. What is this Amiga OS going to do that Palm or PocketPC won't? It's easy to say something will be the "ultimate OS" when it doesn't even exist.
And what does the speed of Quake have to do with the operating system? [answer: very little]. The smallest OS in the world is not going to make 3D mathematics run faster.
The one area you have a point is in boot speed, but most people including me leave their computers on all the time anyway.
You obviously have a lot of nostalgia for the Amiga. There is no question is was very advanced -- in its day. But you don't seem to be able to define exactly what this new platform is going to do for the average user. Computers are already fast. They do everything the Amiga did, and far, far more (let's not even talk about protected or virtual memory). No one except engineers care about what's under the hood (and even then, most engineers don't even care).
This is the problem I have. No one seems to be able to define "how is it going to be better". One thing I will guarantee you is the days of writing an OS completely in assembly are over (although, parts are certainly still assembly).
--
The Amiga community is supporting the classic Amiga because there was no viable elegant non bloated alternative available. Now the developers need something new as the advances in processing power and memory chips were able to compensate the inferior technologies in the current PC hardware architectures and Bloatware OSes.
OK, I'd like to hit this "bloatware" issue head-on. What is it about modern OSs that you dislike so much?
Size? Who cares in an era of 20 gig drives and 1 Ghz processors? I run Win/2000 on a Celeron 466/128 meg of memory. Things run instantaneously.
Features? What features do you advocate cutting? I like having a full-featured operating system. What benefit is there to stripping everything down?
I simply don't understand this longing for a stripped-down operating system. Help me out. What will a "non-bloated" new-style AmigaOS offer me, as a desktop user, that Win/2000 won't? [and don't say "reliability" because Win2K is pretty rock solid]
P.S. I do prefer Linux/Unix as a server OS, but I'm focusing on the desktop for this discussion.
--