Could you please show me a URL to where FTP is defined as part of the TCP/IP packet pased protocol standard?
FTP is a high level protocool that runs _ONTOP_ of TCP/IP.
The Microsoft TCP/IP test is about configuring TCP/IP in NT, using the command line tools, designing domains and sub domains, learning about subnets and a whole lot more to do with TCP/IP and NT.
Uh, PnP is not about Windows detecting the hardware automatically at every boot up. PnP is about the OS's ability to adjust the resource requirements of a hardware device (eg. not hardset by jumpers). Windows 98 just happens to do a PnP hardware scan automatically at boot up. Windows 2000 wouldn't detect install any new hardware until you log on as a user able to add hardware (administrator).
Using an FTP client has as much reason to be in the TCP/IP exam as using ICQ Maybe you should try looking into what the exam is _REALLY_ about before you spout crap.
Say I get Netscape, I don't want the Shopping button, I don't want any caching features - I don't care that I can turn them off, I don't WANT THE FEATURES THERE. I don't want proxy settings there, and I don't want the option of having GIFs or other pictures displayed, I JUST DON'T WANT THOSE BELLS AND WHISTLES.
Howw dare netscape force them onto me. GIF IS EVIL, PROXY IS EVIL, CACHE IS EVIL.
The HTML that Word and other MS apps generates IS propietary... It's called "embrace and extend" and it's exactly what they tried to do with java. Ever try coverting a document to HTML in Word? They add all sorts of propietary crap in there. We would see MS HTML (which would be totally incompatible with W3C standards of course) in a heartbeat if Bill could get enough ppl using IE to pull it off.
Uh duh, show me that proprietry parts? Oh yes, it's called XML, try learning XML once in a while. How is Microsoft supposed to preserved _ALL_ the formating of a word document without using XML?
Windows doesn't stop you but Microsoft sure gets testy about it... I seem to remember MS threatening to sue Gateway and several other big OEMs for having the audacity to preinstall NS on their machines along side IE. All because those OEMs wanted to give their customers more than initial choice for a browser. Is that really so bad?? Bottom line is that with MS you don't have the choices that you have in *nix and several other OSes.
What's your point there? Netscape gets just as testy.
What if *I* DON'T want HTML help or any of the other bells and whistles that Bill summarily shoves down our throats... Too bad for us I spose. I thought MS was all for freedom? Oh yes, that's right... Only *their* freedoms...
So you had no problem with the original help system, and now they use *HTML* you complain?
If you don't want that, don't BUY Windows duh. It's like buying a car, hey I don't like that engine or those seats you have in there. It's Microsoft's product they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. If you don't like *something* inside, don't USE it. You're saying that Microsoft should stop adding new features simply cause "you don't want them". Well, many other people WANT them. You're being such a lamer.
Total mistake IMHO. Mobile Linux isn't that _mobile_ at 64MB (32MB compressed), and Netscape isn't 'mobile' either. Under X, it has really crappy fonts, with no anti aliasing etc. It's also slow, and has problems rendering. It certainly isn't the best choice for a webpad. This may sounds like flamebait, but wouldn't Windows CE + IE make a better choice? Certainly much leaner, can be loaded into ROM, and uh, it works:P. IE for CE supports Flash and all that stuff too. Transmeta doesn't seem to have an 'anti-microsoft' attitude (well except for Linus).
Evidently not that important a part of since one of the government witnesses managed to completely uninstall IE from Windows. Funny that this "important part of Windows" didn't start binding itself to Windows until v4.0 of IE. I'd also like to mention that when IE 4.0 first came out, during the install process MS didn't tell you that you wouldn't be able to uninstall IE 4. Removing IE from the control panel would break your system with extreme prejudice. Truly that is evil...
Well actually, Microsoft dramtically proved that IE _was_ not removed by typing a URL into the my computer window and pressing enter. IE is an important part of Win98. It's an important as vi. Yes yes you say, you can *remove* vi, but the point is things would stop working (like the man pages). Microsoft can't do that to their product, make half the things stop working just cause netscape whines. If Microsoft had gone and created a proprietry format for their "active desktop", "html templates" and "html help", then there would have been ABSOLUTELY no problem. The problem here is that they're using IE technology (in a hideously cool way - look at KDE) and all hell breaks lose of of whiney netscape. If IE was removed HTML help, HTML folders etc would stop working, and don't tell me Microsoft should not have added them (just for netscape eh?), they're very cool, and a smart move, who's going to go and invent a new format when you have HTML and DHTML?
If you don't want to use IE for your browser, you have the *choice* to use netscape (or opera or...), Windows does not stop you from doing that. Just like if you don't want to use vi, you can use emacs, but most people still have vi installed, and stilll use man pages. You could make emacs to view man pages just like you could hack some other browser to view HTML help. The point is microsoft WANTS HTML help in their product, and they have IE technology (it's just a bunch of dlls) that they can use to do exactly that. Yeesh.
To take Microsoft's example. If a car + engine are one product, then how come I can buy an engine seperately?
Also, if Office is one product, how come I can buy Word seperately?
Like microsoft said, any product except the simplist, can always be broken down into 2 or more components that are "tied together".
The issue here is is microsoft allowed to do this with IE since there is a whiney company out there that basis it's entire business on a browser. Certainly "Windows Explorer" is part of Windows (but it's not impossible to write Windows Explorer for Unix - it's just a shell).
Just cause IE can come as a seperate product, doesn't mean it isn't an important part of Windows 98.
Just cause vi can come as a seperate component doesn't mean it isn't an important part of Unix.
To begin with, I'm strictly a C++ and Java progammer. Though I do admit to be well versed in VB, JS, and VBS. There was no need to list common folders in Unix, I'm not _STUPID_.
The point was NOONE wants to edit *.conf files. Like I said. I know some very smart people, and they can't get over how they have to edit stupid files to get connected to the internet. In Windows it's a few mouse clicks and you're done. It IS MORE INTUITIVE.
and as for
Example: i'm in Outlook Exsuck and i want to edit some email information. maybe i got to edit->preferences?? NOPE! what about options? NOPE! i have to go to TOOLS->ACCOUNTS->Mail, then hilite the email account i want (which is impossible for most people to figure out without help) and then click properties. YOU CALL THIS FSCKING INTUITIVE???
It makes total sense. Windows has moved to a "Tools" menu design. Edit -> Preferences is probably the netscape way, but it's not Microsoft's way. Why? Cause OE supports the idea of multiple accounts, Tools -> Accounts, how hard is that? Inside the accounts dialg you can add and custome your accounts, everything is grouped off into sub dialogs in a nice 'OO' style design (yes i know it's not OO).
DRAW a table? Hardly. You can draw boxes, yes, but you can't really draw a "table." I have Office 97 on the PC I'm using right now. And you can draw boxes in StarOffice, too.
No, you can DRAW a table, even in Frontpage you can draw HTML tables, just draw the lines where ever you want to create the cells. It's defeintely not like the box drawing in SO.
Linux has APIs for writing drivers that are MORE open than Windows 9x. Remember that in Linux, most drivers install essentially as patches to the kernel. (Even if you are using kernel modules, these basically patch the kernel at runtime). I have yet to see any really shitty drivers for Linux.
Yes, but noone bothers to write Linux drivers compared to Windows, and those who do normally know what they're doing.
Windows has caught up with Linux? Ha! Thats funny. Tell that to the version of Windows that runs in my VMWare and crashes at least twice a day, or the Windows 95 (OSR2) thats on my work PC that crashes every 5 minutes. I can't remember the last time I rebooted my Linux box, except that it was to upgrade my sound card.
Windows surpases Linux when it comes to technologies, (HAL, Threading, COM type stuff etc). I run Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 at work. I run Windows 2000 as my primary workstation (also have a 2000 server). I have never seen ANY (i repeat ANY) crash, BSOD or otherwise. If you run Win9x, youi deserve to have crashes. Win9x is a pice of crap w.r.t stability for reasons i mentioned previously. I NEVER reboot my Windows 2000 box. I use NT4, 9x and Debian using VMWare inside it. Currently vmware sound and memory problems are the only problems I'm having (not windows' fault).
Great APIs? Yeah, if you can get Microsoft to document them. Sheesh
Again, ignorance, by APIs I mean APIs. Eg. They are documented. They wouldn't be great (or even APIs) if they weren't documented.
Maybe you should look around msdn.microsoft.com once in a while. Gigabytes of source examples, documentation etc etc. Ask me how to do something in Windows, and I could tell you in a few minutes (providing you give me an internet connection:)). I can't understand this misconception that MS 'hide' their APIs. They never hide their APIs (application apis), I guess they hide their NT kernel routines and only license it to people who want to write their own subsystem for NT...but that doesn't really affect 99.9% of developers. I don't see anything in IE or Office that can't be done in windows without the use of hidden APIs. All the CORE APIs and DDIs needed to do 'anything you want' are documented. Microsoft ofcourse document other components which they write for windows (ADO, DAO, ODBC etc) but those are hardn't things they 'need to'....you can always engineer your own data access objects (like borland do). I've found that Microsoft go to great lengths to document all their software, and that's exactly what I mean by developer support. The MSDN community is very friendly and has a 'fun' atmosphere. Regular columists like Dr Gui, DHTML Dude, Ask Jane etc all make it fun:).
Did you try reading the file named README??
I did, and just a complaint. The 1 page INSTALL notes was not included in the distribution, the URL was just mentioned in the README. Stupid. And the INSTALL notes did not say anything about libc.
That's a bit unfair. Microsoft's donations policy has been around long before the trial began. Yell "evil" all you like, but the truth is that Microsoft is probably one of the best companies around....and they successful cause of their "lifestyle" and "work" ethics.
However, Microsoft do only match donations of their employees up to $10000 a year. They ofcourse make other donations..and then there's bill's personal donations.
Also I forgot to mention that in menus with items 'hidden' there is a double down arrow at the bottom which when selected will cause the menu ti display everything hidden (if a hidden menu item is used it nolonger becomes hidden).
Also, if you linger in a menu for a while, the hidden menus will also automatically display (the delay/time out like all good microsoft software isn't hardwired either and is a advanced tweak changable in the registry).
If they want to add a feature that only 5% of users will ever use, it should be handled as an add-in, rather than hard wired into the main program.
Uh they are, and have been for a LONG time. But most people still say BLOAT cause of the space Office takes up on the disk (for quick installtion if it's needed). That's why Office 2000 has a run from cd option for 'parts' of the office suite. And this claim of "bloat" is despite the fact Word/Excel/Etc are the fastest loading office applications in the world. Beat 2 seconds first time round:) (less than a second second time round).
None of microsoft's software has really been hardwired for a long time (since OLE and COM came along like 7-8 years ago now). Why do you think there are so many DLLs?
For instance, StarOffice is good enough for most basic office productivity tasks, Netscape 4.7 is a reasonable alternative to Internet Exploiter, and GIMP is great for editing Web graphics.
But users want talking paperclips, installation programs that look more like videogames than installers, and nice, four-color glossy boxes/manuals with lots of pictures and no content.They care about flash and sizzle and don't give a damn about the steak.
So you think, but as a user I do't care about talking paperclips. I care about my font support, my anti aliasing, my 2 second load time and my performance and printer (and other hardware device) support. All those things apply equally to star office as it does to netscape.
In office (or excel, frontpage etc) for example I can just "draw" a table using a pen as if i was drawing in a CAD application. These are small but clever 'innovations' (yes flame me there) that I _COULD_ live with, but choose not to cause they're convenient and help me get my work done.
The price is neglible to me if I think it is better (as is the case with most people).
Despite the fact that Amiga and OS/2 and Macintosh and other platforms had superior technology
Excuse me? I could accept amiga, os/2, but macintosh? Please. Windows 95 won cause it was good enough. It had preemtpive multiasking and multithreading (like OS2) and process memory protection (for 32bit apps). It's problem lay in it's open driver APIs which encouraged people to write really SHITTY drivers. Windows has (since then) 'caught' up in the areas it was lacking, and excelled in the areas where it has originally excelled. eg. great extensible shell, great componentization and GREAT APIs for developers. Ofcourse 90% of the reason Windows succeeded IMHO is cause of Microsoft's brilliant application developer support. Say what you will, but I've had a much worse time trying to get support from Sun. And their Linux Java 1.2.2 release was horrid, errors in the scripts and they didn't make it clear enough you needed libc 2.1.*. The install process did not detect this or even mention it.
Ok, I would like to setup Linux as a dialup server. Now, can I do that in a few mouse clicks or do I have to scrummage around and manually config getties in silly scripts.
How about setting up samba. I'd like to share/usr/local and only give Joe and Jane access to it. Can I do that in a few mouse clicks intuitively?
Linux is _NOT_ easier to use than Windows.
If it's a choice between editing *.conf files or editing a property page (or alternatively using COM+ APIS) I'll choose the later. I don't see why everyone seems to freak at GUIs. It must be some weird complex that makes them feel 'smarter' not having to use a GUI like those "microsoft folks". Frankly, my time is better spent PROGRAMMING and not having to fiddle around with other people's incompetence. Yes it may be fun to manually configure PPP the first time, but the fun dies away very quickly. Look at dial-up networking in windows, takes less than 4 mouse clicks in windows 2000 to connect to your own ISP. Takes even less if you want to sign up to a new service. pppsetup is _not_ easy for everyone. Noone CARES about what device their modem is, or what the INIT string of their modem is.
And how about printing? I'd like to setup a printer _once_ and use it from any application thank you.
Also, with windows, even if you forget how to do something, it doesn't take long to figure it out - it's logical and designed in such a way as the human brain can figure it out. With Linux, it's pull out the HOWTOs again.
Slashdot Mirror
can't you run them under "command.com" in nt?
ROFL
Could you please show me a URL to where FTP is defined as part of the TCP/IP packet pased protocol standard?
FTP is a high level protocool that runs _ONTOP_ of TCP/IP.
The Microsoft TCP/IP test is about configuring TCP/IP in NT, using the command line tools, designing domains and sub domains, learning about subnets and a whole lot more to do with TCP/IP and NT.
LOL bullcrap.
I have a 'light' slackware setup here with a 486 and 8mb.
it takes yonks to start up any X application.
For example, Netscape took 26 minutes.
Uh, PnP is not about Windows detecting the hardware automatically at every boot up.
PnP is about the OS's ability to adjust the resource requirements of a hardware device (eg. not hardset by jumpers).
Windows 98 just happens to do a PnP hardware scan automatically at boot up.
Windows 2000 wouldn't detect install any new hardware until you log on as a user able to add hardware (administrator).
Using an FTP client has as much reason to be in the TCP/IP exam as using ICQ
Maybe you should try looking into what the exam is _REALLY_ about before you spout crap.
Just a few other examples.
Say I get Netscape, I don't want the Shopping button, I don't want any caching features - I don't care that I can turn them off, I don't WANT THE FEATURES THERE. I don't want proxy settings there, and I don't want the option of having GIFs or other pictures displayed, I JUST DON'T WANT THOSE BELLS AND WHISTLES.
Howw dare netscape force them onto me. GIF IS EVIL, PROXY IS EVIL, CACHE IS EVIL.
The HTML that Word and other MS apps generates IS propietary... It's called "embrace and extend" and it's exactly what they tried to do with java. Ever try coverting a document to HTML in Word? They add all sorts of propietary crap in there. We would see MS HTML (which would be totally incompatible with W3C standards of course) in a heartbeat if Bill could get enough ppl using IE to pull it off.
Uh duh, show me that proprietry parts? Oh yes, it's called XML, try learning XML once in a while. How is Microsoft supposed to preserved _ALL_ the formating of a word document without using XML?
Windows doesn't stop you but Microsoft sure gets testy about it... I seem to remember MS threatening to sue Gateway and several other big OEMs for having the audacity to preinstall NS on their machines along side IE. All because those OEMs wanted to give their customers more than initial choice for a browser. Is that really so bad?? Bottom line is that with MS you don't have the choices that you have in *nix and several other OSes.
What's your point there? Netscape gets just as testy.
What if *I* DON'T want HTML help or any of the other bells and whistles that Bill summarily shoves down our throats... Too bad for us I spose. I thought MS was all for freedom? Oh yes, that's right... Only *their* freedoms...
So you had no problem with the original help system, and now they use *HTML* you complain?
If you don't want that, don't BUY Windows duh.
It's like buying a car, hey I don't like that engine or those seats you have in there.
It's Microsoft's product they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. If you don't like *something* inside, don't USE it.
You're saying that Microsoft should stop adding new features simply cause "you don't want them".
Well, many other people WANT them.
You're being such a lamer.
Mobile Linux is hardly LinCE, it's 64MB.
That runs Netscape.
:P.
Total mistake IMHO. Mobile Linux isn't that _mobile_ at 64MB (32MB compressed), and Netscape isn't 'mobile' either. Under X, it has really crappy fonts, with no anti aliasing etc.
It's also slow, and has problems rendering.
It certainly isn't the best choice for a webpad. This may sounds like flamebait, but wouldn't Windows CE + IE make a better choice? Certainly much leaner, can be loaded into ROM, and uh, it works
IE for CE supports Flash and all that stuff too.
Transmeta doesn't seem to have an 'anti-microsoft' attitude (well except for Linus).
Geeks riding into their local gas station with their laptops.
"Fill her up please"
Evidently not that important a part of since one of the government witnesses managed to completely uninstall IE from Windows. Funny that this "important part of Windows" didn't start binding itself to Windows until v4.0 of IE.
I'd also like to mention that when IE 4.0 first came out, during the install process MS didn't tell you that you wouldn't be able to uninstall IE 4. Removing IE from the control panel would break your system with extreme prejudice. Truly that is evil...
Well actually, Microsoft dramtically proved that IE _was_ not removed by typing a URL into the my computer window and pressing enter.
IE is an important part of Win98. It's an important as vi. Yes yes you say, you can *remove* vi, but the point is things would stop working (like the man pages). Microsoft can't do that to their product, make half the things stop working just cause netscape whines.
If Microsoft had gone and created a proprietry format for their "active desktop", "html templates" and "html help", then there would have been ABSOLUTELY no problem. The problem here is that they're using IE technology (in a hideously cool way - look at KDE) and all hell breaks lose of of whiney netscape.
If IE was removed HTML help, HTML folders etc would stop working, and don't tell me Microsoft should not have added them (just for netscape eh?), they're very cool, and a smart move, who's going to go and invent a new format when you have HTML and DHTML?
If you don't want to use IE for your browser, you have the *choice* to use netscape (or opera or...), Windows does not stop you from doing that.
Just like if you don't want to use vi, you can use emacs, but most people still have vi installed, and stilll use man pages. You could make emacs to view man pages just like you could hack some other browser to view HTML help. The point is microsoft WANTS HTML help in their product, and they have IE technology (it's just a bunch of dlls) that they can use to do exactly that.
Yeesh.
?
To take Microsoft's example. If a car + engine are one product, then how come I can buy an engine seperately?
Also, if Office is one product, how come I can buy Word seperately?
Like microsoft said, any product except the simplist, can always be broken down into 2 or more components that are "tied together".
The issue here is is microsoft allowed to do this with IE since there is a whiney company out there that basis it's entire business on a browser.
Certainly "Windows Explorer" is part of Windows (but it's not impossible to write Windows Explorer for Unix - it's just a shell).
Just cause IE can come as a seperate product, doesn't mean it isn't an important part of Windows 98.
Just cause vi can come as a seperate component doesn't mean it isn't an important part of
Unix.
Yes it is flame bait.
To begin with, I'm strictly a C++ and Java progammer. Though I do admit to be well versed in VB, JS, and VBS.
There was no need to list common folders in Unix, I'm not _STUPID_.
The point was NOONE wants to edit *.conf files. Like I said. I know some very smart people, and they can't get over how they have to edit stupid files to get connected to the internet. In Windows it's a few mouse clicks and you're done. It IS MORE INTUITIVE.
and as for
Example: i'm in Outlook Exsuck and i want to edit some email information. maybe i got to edit->preferences?? NOPE! what about options? NOPE! i have to go to TOOLS->ACCOUNTS->Mail, then hilite the email account i want (which is impossible for most people to figure out without help) and then click properties. YOU CALL THIS FSCKING INTUITIVE???
It makes total sense. Windows has moved to a "Tools" menu design. Edit -> Preferences is probably the netscape way, but it's not Microsoft's way. Why? Cause OE supports the idea of multiple accounts, Tools -> Accounts, how hard is that? Inside the accounts dialg you can add and custome your accounts, everything is grouped off into sub dialogs in a nice 'OO' style design (yes i know it's not OO).
DRAW a table? Hardly. You can draw boxes, yes, but you can't really draw a "table." I have Office 97 on the PC I'm using right now. And you can draw boxes in StarOffice, too.
No, you can DRAW a table, even in Frontpage you can draw HTML tables, just draw the lines where ever you want to create the cells. It's defeintely not like the box drawing in SO.
Linux has APIs for writing drivers that are MORE open than Windows 9x. Remember that in Linux, most drivers install essentially as patches to the kernel. (Even if you are using kernel modules, these basically patch the kernel at runtime). I have yet to see any really shitty drivers for Linux.
Yes, but noone bothers to write Linux drivers compared to Windows, and those who do normally know what they're doing.
Windows has caught up with Linux? Ha! Thats funny. Tell that to the version of Windows that runs in my VMWare and crashes at least twice a day, or the Windows 95 (OSR2) thats on my work PC that crashes every 5 minutes. I can't remember the last time I rebooted my Linux box, except that it was to upgrade my sound card.
Windows surpases Linux when it comes to technologies, (HAL, Threading, COM type stuff etc).
I run Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 at work. I run Windows 2000 as my primary workstation (also have a 2000 server). I have never seen ANY (i repeat ANY) crash, BSOD or otherwise. If you run Win9x, youi deserve to have crashes. Win9x is a pice of crap w.r.t stability for reasons i mentioned previously.
I NEVER reboot my Windows 2000 box. I use NT4, 9x and Debian using VMWare inside it. Currently vmware sound and memory problems are the only problems I'm having (not windows' fault).
Great APIs? Yeah, if you can get Microsoft to document them. Sheesh
Again, ignorance, by APIs I mean APIs. Eg. They are documented. They wouldn't be great (or even APIs) if they weren't documented.
Maybe you should look around msdn.microsoft.com once in a while.
Gigabytes of source examples, documentation etc etc. Ask me how to do something in Windows, and I could tell you in a few minutes (providing you give me an internet connection
I can't understand this misconception that MS 'hide' their APIs. They never hide their APIs (application apis), I guess they hide their NT kernel routines and only license it to people who want to write their own subsystem for NT
I don't see anything in IE or Office that can't be done in windows without the use of hidden APIs. All the CORE APIs and DDIs needed to do 'anything you want' are documented. Microsoft ofcourse document other components which they write for windows (ADO, DAO, ODBC etc) but those are hardn't things they 'need to'....you can always engineer your own data access objects (like borland do). I've found that Microsoft go to great lengths to document all their software, and that's exactly what I mean by developer support.
The MSDN community is very friendly and has a 'fun' atmosphere. Regular columists like Dr Gui, DHTML Dude, Ask Jane etc all make it fun
Did you try reading the file named README??
I did, and just a complaint. The 1 page INSTALL notes was not included in the distribution, the URL was just mentioned in the README. Stupid.
And the INSTALL notes did not say anything about libc.
Noone here must read the attached links :P.
Nashville
That's a bit unfair. Microsoft's donations policy has been around long before the trial began. Yell "evil" all you like, but the truth is that Microsoft is probably one of the best companies around....and they successful cause of their "lifestyle" and "work" ethics.
However, Microsoft do only match donations of their employees up to $10000 a year.
They ofcourse make other donations..and then there's bill's personal donations.
God that's lame, base the OS you used on something like that! It's an OS not a way of life.
But if you want to do it that way...Blll Gates has donated over 10billion to charity........
I'm sorry, but he's stretching this out waaay too far. Humiliation has been done, this is just getting petty.
Just donate the money in a stylish modest way. Anonymously.
According to the press release, this graphics subsystem should make OpenGL apps as fast or faster than they are currently in Windows
That reminds me of Sun's claim that their "hotspot" egine (which they aquired) would be as fast or faster than C++ applications?
Also I forgot to mention that in menus with items 'hidden' there is a double down arrow at the bottom which when selected will cause the menu ti display everything hidden (if a hidden menu item is used it nolonger becomes hidden).
Also, if you linger in a menu for a while, the hidden menus will also automatically display (the delay/time out like all good microsoft software isn't hardwired either and is a advanced tweak changable in the registry).
The 'personal' menus feature can be turned off easily. I think 'clippy' actually asks you about it at one time or another.
In windows 2000 it can be turned off from the task bar properties page. (right click->properties on the task bar).
If they want to add a feature that only 5% of users will ever use, it should be handled as an add-in, rather than hard wired into the main program.
Uh they are, and have been for a LONG time.
But most people still say BLOAT cause of the space Office takes up on the disk (for quick installtion if it's needed). That's why Office 2000 has a run from cd option for 'parts' of the office suite. And this claim of "bloat" is despite the fact Word/Excel/Etc are the fastest loading office applications in the world. Beat 2 seconds first time round
None of microsoft's software has really been hardwired for a long time (since OLE and COM came along like 7-8 years ago now).
Why do you think there are so many DLLs?
For instance, StarOffice is good enough for most basic office productivity tasks, Netscape 4.7 is a reasonable alternative to Internet Exploiter, and GIMP is great for editing Web graphics.
But users want talking paperclips, installation programs that look more like videogames than installers, and nice, four-color glossy boxes/manuals with lots of pictures and no content.They care about flash and sizzle and don't give a damn about the steak.
So you think, but as a user I do't care about talking paperclips. I care about my font support, my anti aliasing, my 2 second load time and my performance and printer (and other hardware device) support.
All those things apply equally to star office as it does to netscape.
In office (or excel, frontpage etc) for example I can just "draw" a table using a pen as if i was drawing in a CAD application. These are small but clever 'innovations' (yes flame me there) that I _COULD_ live with, but choose not to cause they're convenient and help me get my work done.
The price is neglible to me if I think it is better (as is the case with most people).
Despite the fact that Amiga and OS/2 and Macintosh and other platforms had superior technology
Excuse me? I could accept amiga, os/2, but macintosh? Please.
Windows 95 won cause it was good enough. It had preemtpive multiasking and multithreading (like OS2) and process memory protection (for 32bit apps). It's problem lay in it's open driver APIs which encouraged people to write really SHITTY drivers.
Windows has (since then) 'caught' up in the areas it was lacking, and excelled in the areas where it has originally excelled. eg. great extensible shell, great componentization and GREAT APIs for developers. Ofcourse 90% of the reason Windows succeeded IMHO is cause of Microsoft's brilliant application developer support.
Say what you will, but I've had a much worse time trying to get support from Sun. And their Linux Java 1.2.2 release was horrid, errors in the scripts and they didn't make it clear enough you needed libc 2.1.*. The install process did not detect this or even mention it.
Ok, I would like to setup Linux as a dialup server. Now, can I do that in a few mouse clicks or do I have to scrummage around and manually config getties in silly scripts.
/usr/local and only give Joe and Jane access to it. Can I do that in a few mouse clicks intuitively?
How about setting up samba. I'd like to share
Linux is _NOT_ easier to use than Windows.
If it's a choice between editing *.conf files or editing a property page (or alternatively using COM+ APIS) I'll choose the later.
I don't see why everyone seems to freak at GUIs. It must be some weird complex that makes them feel 'smarter' not having to use a GUI like those "microsoft folks". Frankly, my time is better spent PROGRAMMING and not having to fiddle around with other people's incompetence. Yes it may be fun to manually configure PPP the first time, but the fun dies away very quickly.
Look at dial-up networking in windows, takes less than 4 mouse clicks in windows 2000 to connect to your own ISP. Takes even less if you want to sign up to a new service.
pppsetup is _not_ easy for everyone. Noone CARES about what device their modem is, or what the INIT string of their modem is.
And how about printing? I'd like to setup a printer _once_ and use it from any application thank you.
Also, with windows, even if you forget how to do something, it doesn't take long to figure it out - it's logical and designed in such a way as the human brain can figure it out. With Linux, it's pull out the HOWTOs again.