Actually, I think you could make a better case that it would have been a Mac world. Without the pressure of the PC clone market to force IBM to lower it's margins, the relative cost of Macs vs. PCs would have been lower. In addition since IBM showed no interest in a PC based Windowing environment until MS proved there was a market for it, it's doubtful if there would have been an OS/2 anyway. So without MS, it would have been a more expensive command-line OS on the PC vs. the Mac.
At the time the PC was introduced there was not a large scale migration going on from proprietary operating systems to Unix, that would happen years later. When it finally did occur it was mostly a migration from a proprietary non-Unix OS to one of many semi-proprietary incompatible Unix OS's. Only when Linux caught fire in the mid to late 90's was there a significant transition to a single open Unix implementation.
Your comment about the "dozens of different microprocessors hitting the market" seems unrelated to the subject at hand. There certainly wasn't dozens of 16 bit processors available at the time of the PC's introduction. Most activity was in the area of highly integrated embedded microcontrollers rather than general purpose processors because the former was a much larger market.
Re:Nowhere else for Palm to go...
on
Palm to go Linux
·
· Score: 1
There were three key technologies involved in cloning PCs, the hardware platform, the BIOS, and the OS. Since the BIOS couldn't be copied it represented a significant effort to clone without legal issues. Cloning the OS would have been even more difficult if MS hadn't provided a licenses. Finally, there's the hardware platform that was the easiest part to clone.
Re:Nowhere else for Palm to go...
on
Palm to go Linux
·
· Score: 1
To clarify a bit, since the 286 had protected mode too, it could support some functions of Linux.
Re:Nowhere else for Palm to go...
on
Palm to go Linux
·
· Score: 1
"The only serious hardware need for *NIX is a hardware memory manager, which was basically in place with the 386, and certainly complete by the time of the Pentium."
It was the high volume of PCs (due in part to MS enabling the lower-cost clones) that provided a business case to create the 386. As you correctly point out, pre-386 x86 processors couldn't support Linux.
Fortunately, Google verifies that their developers speak at least 3 languages as part of their legendary interview process just for situations like this.
"As reported on and discussed, this matter may be connected to the Microsoft-Novell deal. If so, Novell should have received a license for the Microsoft patents, assuming the deal covered all relevant patents. Does the license therefore extend only to SUSE, but not openSUSE?"
The Microsoft-Novell deal only protects their customers, not the companies themselves. If Novell violates a MS patent, they can be sued by MS; the deal doesn't change that scenario in any way.
I think TI won the duel simply because a high-cost, high-quality approach like HP used made it difficult to successfully market new calculators with new features. If you paid a premium for your HP and the keys still don't bounce after a decade or more of use, it's hard to go out and buy a new one unless there's a pretty compelling reason. If you buy a TI, you'll probably have to replace it within 3-5 years whether you want to or not.
That would make some sense except for the fact that J++ was presented as Java clone from day one. Sun sued MS on the basis of violating a contract, Sun never claimed that MS had stolen anything because nothing was.
I'd like to see a programmer's calculator like the 16C but with an alphanumeric display and programming capability like the 41CV. After programming the 41CV with the alphanumeric display, I couldn't stand scrolling through a program on the 16C and having to map numeric keycodes to functions.
The statement I said was unsupported was: "The people that want to do something really cool want to do it without Microsoft."
How does your comment: "Ok, so turn it around: What is the last "new" application that you used which used win32 directly?" address my comment?
I'm even more perplexed about what you mean by "used win32 directly": apps based on MFC, ATL, or.NET don't count? Clearly there have been applications written for Windows in recent years, I know because I've done some of them myself. I have no idea if my applications would qualify as "cool" by your personal definition.
Just about any statement like "The people that want to do something really cool use brand X or don't use brand Y" is likely to be false, even if we agreed on an exact definition of what "cool" means. This is simply because there are many diverse ways of accomplishing a goal. I have no doubt that there are cool things being done for Windows, Linux, Apple and maybe even the Amiga for all I know.
"The entire context of Paul's commentary made it abundantly clear what industry he was speaking to."
I disagree.
"Paul said that no one he meets run Windows...yet he obviously has access to the same statistics that the rest of us have, which indicate that over 90% of the general computing population runs Windows. Do you think Paul was just claiming that the stats are bogus, and most people are really running alternatives?"
So somehow you conclude from this that he claimed that non-MS users were more innovative? I don't have to explain his ramblings to recognize what he didn't say.
"Actually, no. I can't speak for the others in the thread, but I'm claiming nothing of the sort. This is what I said:
I think that tells you a lot about Paul Graham's everyday environment. He's working with startups, he's trying to put together teams of the bright and innovative, and what he's finding is that most of these people are not using Microsoft software.
See? I'm talking about what Paul Graham is trying to do (as I understand it) and about the relative proportions of operating systems he reports finding in the groups with which he works. "
I see you're trying to rephrase your argument in such a way as to make my objections seem unfair. If you had simply said that most of the people he encounters are not using Microsoft software, I'd have no argument, but what possible intrepretation could one make from the "bright and innovative" phrase other than an attempt to connect these positive characteristics with people who don't use MS software?
"That's rather meaningless, because every innovation is "enabled" by what came before."
But you want to apply that principle selectively to support your argument. If it applies to big companies, it also should apply to acadamia, startups, etc.
The other factor they may have considered is the cool factor "tipping point". If too high a percentage of people buy Apple computers they will lose their elite status.
Actually, Paul didn't restrict his comments to a particular industry nor did he make any claim that non-MS users were more innovative, that was your statement. If you meant to restrict your claims, you should have done so.
"The creative sectors in computing are in academia, start-ups, and the high-end of the hobbyist community. These people define what we will be doing in 5-10 years. Every important new trend of the last 20 years has come out of this sector, including the Internet and Web itself."
The history of computers goes back a lot longer than 20 years. The technology that enables the Internet and the Web were primarily created by large boring companies like IBM, Xerox, AT&T, not academia, start-ups, or hobbyists.
Given that you said "anything" the proof would be a list of all MS products currently for sale with documented evidence that each and every product was not written by someone on MS's payroll. Without that, it's just FUD.
".NET was originally supposed to replace Win32 and be the new paradigm for Windows development"
It wasn't supposed to replace Win32. It is built on top of it and some.Net languages (C# for example) can interact directly with Win32 components (e.g. dll's, COM components etc).
"Microsoft never made any real effort to try to distribute the.Net framework.".Net was too late for Windows XP and I think not dumping it on every XP user in a service pack was the right choice. If your application needs it, you just redistribute it with the application. It is included in Vista, however, so your installation process will be faster there.
"Hence, there is no incentive to develop a.Net app unless you control the machine, ie a server."
I don't get your point. We've delivered.Net apps for the desktop.
"Well you could try offering some support yourself. "
There's a long tradition in debate that the one who is making the claim has the burden of proof. I'm not claiming that those who use MS tools are particularly innovate, bright, etc, but you and a number of others are making such a claim about users of other tools.
I'd say this claim about non-MS users is combination of several advertisement propaganda techniques: Assertion (the characteristics associated with non-MS users are presented without evidence), Glittering Generalities (innovate, bright, etc, are somewhat vague positive words that are tied to non-MS users), and Name Calling (MS users don't have these postive characteristics).
"The people that want to do something really cool want to do it without Microsoft."
Another rephrasing of an unsupported argument. So collectively it's been argued here that those who don't use MS tools are: bright, beautiful, innovative, and "want to do something really cool". If this trend continues somebody will be claiming that they'll be the only ones that go to heaven.
"If you want to hack, windows is not the place"
As former Atari 2600 programmer, I'd say if you want to hack, you should be writing in assembly without an operating system.
You seem to be arguing a different point than the one I responded to. It was your claim that MS is responsible for your perceived lack of new OS development. My point is whatever has or has not been achieved in the F/OSS world with respect to operating systems, it's entirely in the hands of the F/OSS community and doesn't have anything to do with MS.
In fact, if there's any value to F/OSS, it's the potential to ignore the marketplace and market share in favor of making the best possible software. We can debate the extent to which that potential has been realized, but the F/OSS community is soley responsible for their own destiny.
"Microsoft due to its monopoly has asphyxiated nearly all operating system development. Sure, there are some interesting things happening with Linux, but even that is largely a rough copy under a different paradigm."
You essentially disproved your first sentence with your second one. Linux is, in fact, a copy of a non-MS paradigm which means that MS didn't halt all other OS development. One could claim that UNIX has done as much to reduce interest in OS development as MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think you could make a better case that it would have been a Mac world. Without the pressure of the PC clone market to force IBM to lower it's margins, the relative cost of Macs vs. PCs would have been lower. In addition since IBM showed no interest in a PC based Windowing environment until MS proved there was a market for it, it's doubtful if there would have been an OS/2 anyway. So without MS, it would have been a more expensive command-line OS on the PC vs. the Mac.
At the time the PC was introduced there was not a large scale migration going on from proprietary operating systems to Unix, that would happen years later. When it finally did occur it was mostly a migration from a proprietary non-Unix OS to one of many semi-proprietary incompatible Unix OS's. Only when Linux caught fire in the mid to late 90's was there a significant transition to a single open Unix implementation.
Your comment about the "dozens of different microprocessors hitting the market" seems unrelated to the subject at hand. There certainly wasn't dozens of 16 bit processors available at the time of the PC's introduction. Most activity was in the area of highly integrated embedded microcontrollers rather than general purpose processors because the former was a much larger market.
There were three key technologies involved in cloning PCs, the hardware platform, the BIOS, and the OS. Since the BIOS couldn't be copied it represented a significant effort to clone without legal issues. Cloning the OS would have been even more difficult if MS hadn't provided a licenses. Finally, there's the hardware platform that was the easiest part to clone.
To clarify a bit, since the 286 had protected mode too, it could support some functions of Linux.
"The only serious hardware need for *NIX is a hardware memory manager, which was basically in place with the 386, and certainly complete by the time of the Pentium."
It was the high volume of PCs (due in part to MS enabling the lower-cost clones) that provided a business case to create the 386. As you correctly point out, pre-386 x86 processors couldn't support Linux.
Fortunately, Google verifies that their developers speak at least 3 languages as part of their legendary interview process just for situations like this.
"As reported on and discussed, this matter may be connected to the Microsoft-Novell deal. If so, Novell should have received a license for the Microsoft patents, assuming the deal covered all relevant patents. Does the license therefore extend only to SUSE, but not openSUSE?"
The Microsoft-Novell deal only protects their customers, not the companies themselves. If Novell violates a MS patent, they can be sued by MS; the deal doesn't change that scenario in any way.
I think TI won the duel simply because a high-cost, high-quality approach like HP used made it difficult to successfully market new calculators with new features. If you paid a premium for your HP and the keys still don't bounce after a decade or more of use, it's hard to go out and buy a new one unless there's a pretty compelling reason. If you buy a TI, you'll probably have to replace it within 3-5 years whether you want to or not.
That would make some sense except for the fact that J++ was presented as Java clone from day one. Sun sued MS on the basis of violating a contract, Sun never claimed that MS had stolen anything because nothing was.
I'd like to see a programmer's calculator like the 16C but with an alphanumeric display and programming capability like the 41CV. After programming the 41CV with the alphanumeric display, I couldn't stand scrolling through a program on the 16C and having to map numeric keycodes to functions.
The statement I said was unsupported was: "The people that want to do something really cool want to do it without Microsoft."
.NET don't count? Clearly there have been applications written for Windows in recent years, I know because I've done some of them myself. I have no idea if my applications would qualify as "cool" by your personal definition.
How does your comment: "Ok, so turn it around: What is the last "new" application that you used which used win32 directly?"
address my comment?
I'm even more perplexed about what you mean by "used win32 directly": apps based on MFC, ATL, or
Just about any statement like "The people that want to do something really cool use brand X or don't use brand Y" is likely to be false, even if we agreed on an exact definition of what "cool" means. This is simply because there are many diverse ways of accomplishing a goal. I have no doubt that there are cool things being done for Windows, Linux, Apple and maybe even the Amiga for all I know.
You also said:
"These days, I don't think they do, and I think the talent in the industry is starting to look elsewhere"
Is there some other intrepretation you have for that one too?
Clearly, you were trying to make a link between talent, innovation, etc and non-MS users throughout this discussion.
If you want to admit you were wrong, than fine, but don't pretend that you were misunderstood.
"The entire context of Paul's commentary made it abundantly clear what industry he was speaking to."
I disagree.
"Paul said that no one he meets run Windows...yet he obviously has access to the same statistics that the rest of us have, which indicate that over 90% of the general computing population runs Windows. Do you think Paul was just claiming that the stats are bogus, and most people are really running alternatives?"
So somehow you conclude from this that he claimed that non-MS users were more innovative? I don't have to explain his ramblings to recognize what he didn't say.
"Actually, no. I can't speak for the others in the thread, but I'm claiming nothing of the sort. This is what I said:
I think that tells you a lot about Paul Graham's everyday environment. He's working with startups, he's trying to put together teams of the bright and innovative, and what he's finding is that most of these people are not using Microsoft software.
See? I'm talking about what Paul Graham is trying to do (as I understand it) and about the relative proportions of operating systems he reports finding in the groups with which he works. "
I see you're trying to rephrase your argument in such a way as to make my objections seem unfair. If you had simply said that most of the people he encounters are not using Microsoft software, I'd have no argument, but what possible intrepretation could one make from the "bright and innovative" phrase other than an attempt to connect these positive characteristics with people who don't use MS software?
"That's rather meaningless, because every innovation is "enabled" by what came before."
But you want to apply that principle selectively to support your argument. If it applies to big companies, it also should apply to acadamia, startups, etc.
The other factor they may have considered is the cool factor "tipping point". If too high a percentage of people buy Apple computers they will lose their elite status.
Actually, Paul didn't restrict his comments to a particular industry nor did he make any claim that non-MS users were more innovative, that was your statement. If you meant to restrict your claims, you should have done so.
"The creative sectors in computing are in academia, start-ups, and the high-end of the hobbyist community. These people define what we will be doing in 5-10 years. Every important new trend of the last 20 years has come out of this sector, including the Internet and Web itself."
The history of computers goes back a lot longer than 20 years. The technology that enables the Internet and the Web were primarily created by large boring companies like IBM, Xerox, AT&T, not academia, start-ups, or hobbyists.
"MS didnt write anything they currently sell."
Given that you said "anything" the proof would be a list of all MS products currently for sale with documented evidence that each and every product was not written by someone on MS's payroll. Without that, it's just FUD.
".NET was originally supposed to replace Win32 and be the new paradigm for Windows development"
.Net languages (C# for example) can interact directly with Win32 components (e.g. dll's, COM components etc).
It wasn't supposed to replace Win32. It is built on top of it and some
"Microsoft never made any real effort to try to distribute the .Net framework." .Net was too late for Windows XP and I think not dumping it on every XP user in a service pack was the right choice. If your application needs it, you just redistribute it with the application. It is included in Vista, however, so your installation process will be faster there.
.Net app unless you control the machine, ie a server."
.Net apps for the desktop.
"Hence, there is no incentive to develop a
I don't get your point. We've delivered
"Well you could try offering some support yourself. "
There's a long tradition in debate that the one who is making the claim has the burden of proof. I'm not claiming that those who use MS tools are particularly innovate, bright, etc, but you and a number of others are making such a claim about users of other tools.
I'd say this claim about non-MS users is combination of several advertisement propaganda techniques: Assertion (the characteristics associated with non-MS users are presented without evidence), Glittering Generalities (innovate, bright, etc, are somewhat vague positive words that are tied to non-MS users), and Name Calling (MS users don't have these postive characteristics).
"The people that want to do something really cool want to do it without Microsoft."
Another rephrasing of an unsupported argument. So collectively it's been argued here that those who don't use MS tools are: bright, beautiful, innovative, and "want to do something really cool". If this trend continues somebody will be claiming that they'll be the only ones that go to heaven.
"If you want to hack, windows is not the place"
As former Atari 2600 programmer, I'd say if you want to hack, you should be writing in assembly without an operating system.
You seem to be arguing a different point than the one I responded to. It was your claim that MS is responsible for your perceived lack of new OS development. My point is whatever has or has not been achieved in the F/OSS world with respect to operating systems, it's entirely in the hands of the F/OSS community and doesn't have anything to do with MS.
In fact, if there's any value to F/OSS, it's the potential to ignore the marketplace and market share in favor of making the best possible software. We can debate the extent to which that potential has been realized, but the F/OSS community is soley responsible for their own destiny.
"Microsoft due to its monopoly has asphyxiated nearly all operating system development. Sure, there are some interesting things happening with Linux, but even that is largely a rough copy under a different paradigm."
You essentially disproved your first sentence with your second one. Linux is, in fact, a copy of a non-MS paradigm which means that MS didn't halt all other OS development. One could claim that UNIX has done as much to reduce interest in OS development as MS.