Macs had Virtual Memory before Windows, as well as no 640k HIMEM/LOMEM boundary, [...]
ActuallyWindows had them first with version 3.0, released in the middle of 1990. MacOS didn't get them until System 7.0, released in early 1991.
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
The objects aren't text, you can't load them in notepad, and you can't pipe them like you can with UNIX.
When all you've got is a hammer, I guess everything looks like a nail...
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Where *specificially* is plaintext not optimal?
Because the format and methods of manipulating that plain text are not consistent.
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
The IE dev teams blogs (nay, boasts!) about tabbed browsing in IE7 -- saying nothing of the fact that tabs are years old.
Is this like when the Linux crowd was boasting about their fancy new O(1) scheduler when Windows NT had one since its first release ?
MS brags and boasts about Monad, which is still vaporware, but it sure will be the best shell ever -- saying nothing of the fact that this has been available forever in *nix.
No unix shell I've ever used does what Monad does.
Re:But they didn't deliver; they provided a stop-g
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Windows 95 still had a crappy FAT filesystem (even though Microsoft had developed HPFS years before) and it was still a pile of 32-bit DLLs (or VxDs) running on top of DOS instead of a compartmentalized 32-bit OS with a classic kernel/shell design.
That's because it _had_ to be to meet it's primary design criteria of backwards compatibility.
Not to mention those "32-bit DLLs (or VxDs)" replaced just about every aspect of DOS. In just about evrey way, DOS was little more than a bootloader.
Microsoft's older version of OS/2 was a 16-bit solution that wasn't all that competitive, but at least it had a real filesystem and an architecture that made a little bit of sense to someone with a comp sci background.
Microsoft had an OS for that crowd as well - NT.
NT was around then, as you say, and it had a good native 32-bit core, but it still used the Windows 3.1 desktop and had such poor support for DOS apps that many people couldn't use it effectively (at least for a few more years).
Which is why we had Windows 9x. NT's DOS support hasn't really changed much - what has is how many DOS apps (and, more importantly, hardware with only DOS drivers) are being used.
As I always say - considering all the crazy shit Windows 95 did, it's impressive it worked at all, let alone as well as it did.
There is nothing that new about a microprocessor that has been hacked since the 70's. Other computer systems have evolved and changed chip designs, but not in the PeeCee land.
Incorrect. The instruction set has remained (relatively) unchanged. The physical processors have changed immensely.
Our apps dominate on the corporate desktop because they only run on Windows.
Er, no. They dominate on the corporate desktop because they're largely unchallenged.
Our OS's dominate on the corporate desktop because they run our apps - and because we have business contracts and marketing to convince people to use our OS because it was cheaper than UNIX for years. So we got there first.
Now you're on to something. Windows is popular because it runs the apps, not the other way around. It's the *applications* that matter most.
Security ain't "it" - yet, anyway - when we see people ditching us in droves because of security, then maybe we'll fix it - 'cause it's gonna be a major rewrite and that costs me money, so it ain't happening until it costs me MORE money NOT to do it. And as long as we're making profit and have dominant market share, why should I?
There's no reason whatsoever to do a "rewrite" to "fix" the "security problems" in Windows. Particularly since about 99% of them are due to end users doing silly things or poorly written software.
That's why I pissed away $37 over the next few years - to prop up the stock - instead of spending it on pointless - to me - technology research. I could spend $37 billion on research and get nothing. I can spend $37 billion of the company's money and keep MY personal stock value up there.
This might carry some weight if Microsoft didn't spend so much on R&D.
NIH syndrome is pervasive throughout MS; MS tends to reinvent things because they sincerely believe their version is *always* better.
s/MS/The OSS community/g.
It boggles the mind someone from the OSS community (they of the thousand text editors and reimplementing entire GUIs because of philosophical semantics) feels justified criticising Microsoft for NIH syndrome.
Particularly when it's often accompanied by a criticism of how Microsoft never make anything themselves, they always buy it or steal it...
Stallman may be a socialist or semi-socialist or pseudo-socialist or whatever, but even the GPL allows people to sell open source software as long as the source is included.
In a few empty words, maybe, but from a practical perspective selling GPLed software is basically impossible without tying it to some other good or service that isn't free.
Granted they're more fine-grained, yada, yada, but to the degree they're effective, and to the degree the defaults are acceptable, I wonder how many Windows admins can make use of them, or, just as importantly, manage them.
Managing file permissions in Windows is not hard. Granted, inexperienced/incompetent admins are probably going to make a mess of it - but that applies equally to the simplistic u/g/o unix model. Not to mention dealing with exceptions to the general rule is a hell of a lot easier with ACLs.
Bollocks. IE and Navigator were basically equal at their respective version 3.x (ca. 1996/97) and IE was the better browser as of the 4.x releases (ca. 1997/98).
You could do that if you owned the copyright to linux.
There's some other way you could "own" software ?
As I explained clearly in my original post, there is a difference between the copyright and a copy.
You most certainly do "own" your copy of Windows (in as much as you can "own" anything you don't hold the copyright to) in the same way you "own" your copy of Linux - ie: there are certain legal restrictions about what you can and can't do with copy. It is the extent of these restrictions you are complaining about, not the fact they apply only to Windows but not to Linux.
This is a side-effect of copyright as a concept, and has nothing to do with software licenses, EULAs, proprietry software, Microsoft, or similar. It applies to books, music - anything that's copyrightable - you don't actually "own" it if you buy a copy.
If you really could "own" software, you'd be able to do whatever-the-hell you wanted with it. Whether "whatever" is "modify and resell" or "connect more than 5 machines", it makes no difference - the principal is the same.
Probably the same reason it won't have "overclocking features" - ie: there's not much overlap between the group of people who want $1500 Quad-CPU motherboards (that take $700ea CPUs) and those who want l33t SLI-video "gaming rigs".
(For example, a maximum of 5 network connections are permitted. If you actually owned your copy of the software, you could make as many connections as you wish.)
If you actually owned Linux, you'd be able to make as many modifications as you chose and then resell it completely on your own terms.
And yet, not long ago, this was a topic of much concern by auto-shops who wanted access to the error codes the car's computer would spit out so they could diagnose and fix cars.
There is a vast gulf of difference between "error codes" and schematics. Access to the former does not require access to the latter any more than programming to an API require's that API's source code.
It's akin to buying a house and not being able to change the light bulbs or put an extension on without asking the original architect for his permission.
No, it's not, for the same reason copying a song isn't the same thing as stealing a CD.
I spent 5 minutes reading that website and found pages of bullshit, partisan opinion, unjustified criticism, questionable conclusions and even simple factual errors. What is it trying to achieve ?
Obsessions like that are unhealthy. Someone needs to "get a life".
You can knock Apple wanting to control things as much as you want, but I can tell you that as an Apple consumer the reason I stay with Apple is because they control their hardware. Things work. I'm not interested in defending anything that leads to Apple quality going downhill because I want to continue using Apple products in the future.
I fail to see the connection between people illegally using OS X in an unsupported fashion and the quality of OS X going downhill.
Apple is not going to release OS X for generic PCs. They might not try too hard to stop it, but it's almost certainly not going to become their business model. So as long as you're buying a Mac from Apple, *your* end user experience isn't going to change a bit, no matter how many people install unsupported copies of OS X onto their PCs.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 95 was released 2 years behind schedule. It was hardly "rushed".
ActuallyWindows had them first with version 3.0, released in the middle of 1990. MacOS didn't get them until System 7.0, released in early 1991.
When all you've got is a hammer, I guess everything looks like a nail...
Because the format and methods of manipulating that plain text are not consistent.
Is this like when the Linux crowd was boasting about their fancy new O(1) scheduler when Windows NT had one since its first release ?
MS brags and boasts about Monad, which is still vaporware, but it sure will be the best shell ever -- saying nothing of the fact that this has been available forever in *nix.
No unix shell I've ever used does what Monad does.
That's because it _had_ to be to meet it's primary design criteria of backwards compatibility.
Not to mention those "32-bit DLLs (or VxDs)" replaced just about every aspect of DOS. In just about evrey way, DOS was little more than a bootloader.
Microsoft's older version of OS/2 was a 16-bit solution that wasn't all that competitive, but at least it had a real filesystem and an architecture that made a little bit of sense to someone with a comp sci background.
Microsoft had an OS for that crowd as well - NT.
NT was around then, as you say, and it had a good native 32-bit core, but it still used the Windows 3.1 desktop and had such poor support for DOS apps that many people couldn't use it effectively (at least for a few more years).
Which is why we had Windows 9x. NT's DOS support hasn't really changed much - what has is how many DOS apps (and, more importantly, hardware with only DOS drivers) are being used.
As I always say - considering all the crazy shit Windows 95 did, it's impressive it worked at all, let alone as well as it did.
Incorrect. The instruction set has remained (relatively) unchanged. The physical processors have changed immensely.
Try telling that to the current crop of under-25s who reach for calculators to perform trivial mathematical operations.
Office for Mac ?
Our apps dominate on the corporate desktop because they only run on Windows.
Er, no. They dominate on the corporate desktop because they're largely unchallenged.
Our OS's dominate on the corporate desktop because they run our apps - and because we have business contracts and marketing to convince people to use our OS because it was cheaper than UNIX for years. So we got there first.
Now you're on to something. Windows is popular because it runs the apps, not the other way around. It's the *applications* that matter most.
Security ain't "it" - yet, anyway - when we see people ditching us in droves because of security, then maybe we'll fix it - 'cause it's gonna be a major rewrite and that costs me money, so it ain't happening until it costs me MORE money NOT to do it. And as long as we're making profit and have dominant market share, why should I?
There's no reason whatsoever to do a "rewrite" to "fix" the "security problems" in Windows. Particularly since about 99% of them are due to end users doing silly things or poorly written software.
That's why I pissed away $37 over the next few years - to prop up the stock - instead of spending it on pointless - to me - technology research. I could spend $37 billion on research and get nothing. I can spend $37 billion of the company's money and keep MY personal stock value up there.
This might carry some weight if Microsoft didn't spend so much on R&D.
s/MS/The OSS community/g.
It boggles the mind someone from the OSS community (they of the thousand text editors and reimplementing entire GUIs because of philosophical semantics) feels justified criticising Microsoft for NIH syndrome.
Particularly when it's often accompanied by a criticism of how Microsoft never make anything themselves, they always buy it or steal it...
In a few empty words, maybe, but from a practical perspective selling GPLed software is basically impossible without tying it to some other good or service that isn't free.
Managing file permissions in Windows is not hard. Granted, inexperienced/incompetent admins are probably going to make a mess of it - but that applies equally to the simplistic u/g/o unix model. Not to mention dealing with exceptions to the general rule is a hell of a lot easier with ACLs.
Using the GUI is brain dead [...]
Why ?
Bollocks. IE and Navigator were basically equal at their respective version 3.x (ca. 1996/97) and IE was the better browser as of the 4.x releases (ca. 1997/98).
Firstly, that would be a step backwards from Windows's security model and ACLs.
Secondly, Windows NT has had this functionality since it was released ca 1992/93.
There's some other way you could "own" software ?
As I explained clearly in my original post, there is a difference between the copyright and a copy.
You most certainly do "own" your copy of Windows (in as much as you can "own" anything you don't hold the copyright to) in the same way you "own" your copy of Linux - ie: there are certain legal restrictions about what you can and can't do with copy. It is the extent of these restrictions you are complaining about, not the fact they apply only to Windows but not to Linux.
This is a side-effect of copyright as a concept, and has nothing to do with software licenses, EULAs, proprietry software, Microsoft, or similar. It applies to books, music - anything that's copyrightable - you don't actually "own" it if you buy a copy.
If you really could "own" software, you'd be able to do whatever-the-hell you wanted with it. Whether "whatever" is "modify and resell" or "connect more than 5 machines", it makes no difference - the principal is the same.
Probably the same reason it won't have "overclocking features" - ie: there's not much overlap between the group of people who want $1500 Quad-CPU motherboards (that take $700ea CPUs) and those who want l33t SLI-video "gaming rigs".
I've had that happen with email accounts on private mailservers. It's from spammers sending to a@hotmail.com, b@hotmail.com, c@hotmail.com, etc, etc.
If you actually owned Linux, you'd be able to make as many modifications as you chose and then resell it completely on your own terms.
There is a vast gulf of difference between "error codes" and schematics. Access to the former does not require access to the latter any more than programming to an API require's that API's source code.
[...]
free(remember, an OS is only supposed to be the middle man between your applications and your hardware)
[...]
Cars are just "the middle man" between me being able to get from A to B as well - I guess they should be free, too ?
As long as Windows is designed under the umbrella of a capitalistic monopoly, things will continue in the downward slope they started in the 90's.
Why is Windows any different to any other product designed under the umbrella of capitalism ?
No, it's not, for the same reason copying a song isn't the same thing as stealing a CD.
I spent 5 minutes reading that website and found pages of bullshit, partisan opinion, unjustified criticism, questionable conclusions and even simple factual errors. What is it trying to achieve ?
Obsessions like that are unhealthy. Someone needs to "get a life".
I'd be interested to hear if you could come up with even a hypotehtical way this would be possible.
I fail to see the connection between people illegally using OS X in an unsupported fashion and the quality of OS X going downhill.
Apple is not going to release OS X for generic PCs. They might not try too hard to stop it, but it's almost certainly not going to become their business model. So as long as you're buying a Mac from Apple, *your* end user experience isn't going to change a bit, no matter how many people install unsupported copies of OS X onto their PCs.
"Anti-competitive practices" are just "competitive practices" that a judge has arbitrarily decided are "bad".
The only conclusion I can sensibly come to is that Microsoft doesn't like competition.
No company likes competition - it's bad for business.