You do realize that Microsoft's bundling of IE made it so they didn't have to improve it to the point of being competitive? (Same goes for the per-processor agreements for DOS/Windows/MSOffice.)
Yes, it does. Your argument is specious and assumes IE will always be/has always been on the Windows desktop. What if the consumer had both IE, Firefox, and Opera on their desktop? Why isn't this possible? If installation is such a hardship, then let the computer vendors install one or more browsers. Maybe it would be a point of competition. The same is true for all applications. Bundling applications used to be a point of competition for hardware vendors.
A better axiom is to raise the level of abstraction. Use a technology like Executable UML to model your application and choose a model compiler that suits your needs for performance and platform independence.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree that WebApps generally suck when compared to a Windows App performing the same task.
Faulty logic, because I could say that Windows Apps generally suck when compared to an OS/2 App performing the same task. This is true in my experience, but has absolutely no bearing on the current state of computer applications.
You qualify this with
when the situation doesn't make it necessary to create a product as a WebApp, I think it's generally stupid to do so.
and later state
I can't understand why you would run software on something other than its native platform.
Both of these statements ignore the constantly changing face of the personal computer marketplace (which is rapidly including more and more portable platforms). Companies who use multi-platform technologies are better configured for the long term. OTOH, the newer multi-platform technologies can hurt in the short term due to the performance issues you've described.
Microsoft can't offer Windows for free until it loses it's monopoly.
Why? They happen to be the absolute LAST vendor trying to sell a PC operating system. So who would they be accused of competing unfairly against?
The PC market is not just about the price of operating systems. If it was, then Windows would no longer have 80%+ of the market. Microsoft's established monopoly comes with an applications barrier to entry, which means that as long as Microsoft has a monopoly then the commercial software vendors will choose to write applications for Windows foremost.
The existing monopoly also affects choice of OS to preload by the PC vendors, and choice of compliance for device vendors. Microsoft doesn't have to strongarm anyone, when the sales differential is so large.
Microsoft can't offer Windows for free until it loses it's monopoly. Windows will have to drop to at least 50% market share and free Windows would have to mean no return to a higher percentage, or the DOJ would need to impose penalties.
Not necessarily. If the 100k guy is really good and the 50k guy really blows, then you can still make a loss (lost productivity, lost sales, training costs and lost knowledge).
This assumes that the company actually measures productivity. Amazingly enough, some companies still look at their knowledge workers as fungible resources and therefore fixed costs.
I'd shine the spotlight on Windows, before I'd look at the subnotebook specifications. Windows has a long history of being a poor multitasker among it's OS peers.
The government has still failed to remedy the anti-competitive damage done by Microsoft to the computer industry. Maybe this would be a step toward reestablishing competition in the marketplace.
I agree 100%. I have always preferred the What You See Is What You Mean (WYSIWYM) type of document producing tools. Right now LyX seems to be the most popular of that genre, but there are others.
I think you meant, "Did Stardock help OS/2?". I saw someone else's comment on big fish in small pond and thought the same thing. You can do like Stardock and use the revenue generated in the small pond to capitalize your leap to Windows development. Stardock didn't really have a malicious intent, but it's too bad they couldn't figure out a way to develop for both platforms. (Lack of 3D hardware acceleration on OS/2 was a major stumbling block, however.)
Sure, but let's make it universal to all jobs. If we can apply generalities to politicians, then we can surely apply them to all job positions: all managers are sycophantic ladder climbers, all software engineers are fungible, all union workers are lazy and incompetent, etc.
Cortland Starrett has met with good results teaching high school kids Executable UML. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04281135 This will put them ahead of their peers in college, as they will have better insight into proper partitioning of the problem spaces present in a system.
OTOH, they may have trouble understanding some of the illogical approaches taken by their professors and peers in the name of "good" OOP, or have trouble talking problem solving at a lower level of abstraction.
Well one could easily say, "I run OS/2" or "I run eComStation", as these are both virus free platforms that can run on modern hardware and are still useful on today's internet.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that Microsoft's bundling of IE made it so they didn't have to improve it to the point of being competitive? (Same goes for the per-processor agreements for DOS/Windows/MSOffice.)
Yes, it does. Your argument is specious and assumes IE will always be/has always been on the Windows desktop.
What if the consumer had both IE, Firefox, and Opera on their desktop? Why isn't this possible? If installation is such a hardship, then let the computer vendors install one or more browsers. Maybe it would be a point of competition.
The same is true for all applications. Bundling applications used to be a point of competition for hardware vendors.
A better axiom is to raise the level of abstraction. Use a technology like Executable UML to model your application and choose a model compiler that suits your needs for performance and platform independence.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree that WebApps generally suck when compared to a Windows App performing the same task.
Faulty logic, because I could say that Windows Apps generally suck when compared to an OS/2 App performing the same task. This is true in my experience, but has absolutely no bearing on the current state of computer applications.
You qualify this with
when the situation doesn't make it necessary to create a product as a WebApp, I think it's generally stupid to do so.
and later state
I can't understand why you would run software on something other than its native platform.
Both of these statements ignore the constantly changing face of the personal computer marketplace (which is rapidly including more and more portable platforms). Companies who use multi-platform technologies are better configured for the long term. OTOH, the newer multi-platform technologies can hurt in the short term due to the performance issues you've described.
Microsoft can't offer Windows for free until it loses it's monopoly.
Why? They happen to be the absolute LAST vendor trying to sell a PC operating system. So who would they be accused of competing unfairly against?
The PC market is not just about the price of operating systems. If it was, then Windows would no longer have 80%+ of the market. Microsoft's established monopoly comes with an applications barrier to entry, which means that as long as Microsoft has a monopoly then the commercial software vendors will choose to write applications for Windows foremost.
The existing monopoly also affects choice of OS to preload by the PC vendors, and choice of compliance for device vendors. Microsoft doesn't have to strongarm anyone, when the sales differential is so large.
This is the man who made computers widespread
Sorry, but this is bullshit. Computers were already well on their way to being wide spread before Microsoft came on the scene.
Windows will soon be going for near $0.
Microsoft can't offer Windows for free until it loses it's monopoly. Windows will have to drop to at least 50% market share and free Windows would have to mean no return to a higher percentage, or the DOJ would need to impose penalties.
"We still haven't been able to get all of our OS/2 customers to switch to Linux." ;-)
Not necessarily. If the 100k guy is really good and the 50k guy really blows, then you can still make a loss (lost productivity, lost sales, training costs and lost knowledge).
This assumes that the company actually measures productivity. Amazingly enough, some companies still look at their knowledge workers as fungible resources and therefore fixed costs.
I'd shine the spotlight on Windows, before I'd look at the subnotebook specifications. Windows has a long history of being a poor multitasker among it's OS peers.
I tend to write off Anonymous Cowards anyway, but this is an open discussion. The information wasn't intended for you, but to qualify your remarks.
You were the one looking for experience, and now you're equating college class projects with real world project experience. ???
Maybe you're vetting process needs improved, since you "end up paying senior-level salaries and they only can do junior-level work."
Try hiring older experienced workers. They'll be more productive sooner, so you won't have to hire as many.
My copy of OS/2 2.1 doesn't mention the Launchpad in the documentation. Maybe it was released as an add-on at some point before 3.0.
Neither are as useful as the task bar introduced in OS/2 Warp 4. Gnome has copied this concept fairly well.
The clunky application launcher taking up screen space is a throw back to NEXT / CDE / OS/2 Warp 3.
The Microsoft-IBM co-development of OS/2 stopped at version 1.2.
The "taskbar" wasn't introduced until OS/2 3.0, but the "Minimized Window Viewer" was present in 2.x.
... if OS/2 on a single processor still outperforms Windows NT^H^HXP on multiple processors? ;-)
The government has still failed to remedy the anti-competitive damage done by Microsoft to the computer industry. Maybe this would be a step toward reestablishing competition in the marketplace.
I agree 100%. I have always preferred the What You See Is What You Mean (WYSIWYM) type of document producing tools. Right now LyX seems to be the most popular of that genre, but there are others.
The Government should auction off the format specification to help pay for the costs.
Yes! The average consumer associates Apple with the Mac guy in the commercials. Maybe he should replace Jobs, at least as a figurehead. :-D
I think you meant, "Did Stardock help OS/2?". I saw someone else's comment on big fish in small pond and thought the same thing. You can do like Stardock and use the revenue generated in the small pond to capitalize your leap to Windows development. Stardock didn't really have a malicious intent, but it's too bad they couldn't figure out a way to develop for both platforms. (Lack of 3D hardware acceleration on OS/2 was a major stumbling block, however.)
Sure, but let's make it universal to all jobs. If we can apply generalities to politicians, then we can surely apply them to all job positions: all managers are sycophantic ladder climbers, all software engineers are fungible, all union workers are lazy and incompetent, etc.
Three buttons and a joystick mounted on the console. They've had this in arcades for years. >;->
Cortland Starrett has met with good results teaching high school kids Executable UML. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04281135 This will put them ahead of their peers in college, as they will have better insight into proper partitioning of the problem spaces present in a system.
OTOH, they may have trouble understanding some of the illogical approaches taken by their professors and peers in the name of "good" OOP, or have trouble talking problem solving at a lower level of abstraction.
Well one could easily say, "I run OS/2" or "I run eComStation", as these are both virus free platforms that can run on modern hardware and are still useful on today's internet.