BTW, I've heard stories of people who've used Windows without problems. I've just never met any of them. I figured they were related to those elfs that used to fix Kawasaki motorcycles at night. Are you an elf?;-)
You've obviously not met any of the latest crop of virus and spam-zombie writers. They are probably "passionate" about Windows.
Another place for Bill to look to is all the Windows repair people/businesses. Unlike the fabled "Maytag repairman", the Windows repairmen always have plenty of work. They just love Microsoft Windows. It makes them alot of money.
currently, cobalt has a different kernal than the garnet devices; which has been headed up by a lot of old-beos developers. (remember, they purchased em).
yes, I remember that it was ~2-3 years ago IIRC. I still can't believe they don't have a shipping product yet. When I talked with the Palm engineers working on the OS and bringing in BeOS, they said they were keeping the work they had already done and were bringing in pieces of BeOS. It was obvious that they thought their work was better than BeOS... NOW, they are attempting to do it right. This time, they are putting the PalmOS API ontop of the GNU/Linux kernel. Something they should have done with the BeOS kernel years ago.
This( Lin/Cobalt ) is probably their last chance. IMHO
Obviously the press has never caught on to this and just keep quoting some polished MSFT press release docs to collect their payment for the articles.
Regardless, it's always the acts of the company( Microsoft ) preventing actual competition/choice that's done any harm to the competitor.
And another thing, Microsoft has lost about $1 Billion / year on their mobile Windows OS( WinCE ) since it went on the market some 8+ years ago. How could anybody in their right mind even think that this is just going to magically change because Microsoft says it is?
except this "Bill" is out to find out where Microsoft can take advantage of Linux and open source to crush it.
Microsoft does not leave a competitor with much, if any, life left in them after they are done with them. The GPL and other licenses might help keep open source around for years to come, but a full blown patent attack could shut down many of the key projects. Even if they are unfounded, the cost of fighting back could cost billions.
personally, I would not let this Bill or the other Bill in my front door.
Wow, right you are, Apple is using the name "Tiger" without any obvious identification with their Mac OS X trademarks. I would not have expected that. But then again, I did't expect Sun to license JAVA to Microsoft, nor Napster to be pushing the sharing of copyrighted songs. Thanks for pointing this out.
This case is not as obvious a blunder as the previous examples IMO. After all, the term "Tiger" is a very generic term. Maybe Apple is as smart as they seem to be and they did their homework on this, and TigerDirect hasn't a paw to stand on.
3 per week... sounds like TigerDirect is pumping up its distribution numbers and I would not put this past them.
It also goes hand and hand with why it takes sooo many requests to have the catalog stopped. Remember, they make their money off advertising. Product placement in their catalog costs bucks and they sell that by stating catalog distribution numbers to the prospective advertisees.
those guys are weasels anyways so it does not surprise me that they pull this.
WTF anyways, the product is called Mac OS X v10.4 and Tiger is just the codename. What the heck would it have to do with selling software? Surely people are not going to be confused the too. IMO, TigerDirect is doing this for free marketing. Like I said, they are weasels more than they are tigers. IMHO
That is right, and a cool feature. I had forgot about that.
It reminds me of when my boss spent the entire morning trying to load MS FlightSimulator on his Dos/Windows 3.x PC and was cussing up a storm because he couldn't get it to work. Stuff about unloading devices in the config.sys were screwing him up. I had OS/2 running on an AMD 386/40 machine I brought in from home( no way I was going to work on a VT screen! ) so I asked for the install disks. He said there is no way I'd be able to get MS FlightSim working on OS/2. After all, he said, this is MS DOS, MS Windows, and the flight sim if from MS also. A couple of clicks to create a new DOS VM icon, change a couple of VM properties, and then install MS Flight Simulator. Ten or fifteen minutes at most and I was flying around the airport.
I didn't need the boot a DOS disk( I did do that a handful of times ) but it kinda shows how good OS/2's DOS compatibility is, and how configurable it is too.
Thanks William. That would make sense( pre OS/2 ) but I don't remember anything in "StartUp" about IBM notepads but I'll have to go and re-read that.
And thanks for the model numbers. I finally found a site with pictures of the Thinkpad 630PE ( tp360p ). It looks pretty heavy but the design/concept was there so long long ago.
In the early 90's, when Pen for OS/2 was around, I had asked IBM about a ThinkPad where the LCD rotated around and covered the keyboard. A guy from IBM said that IBM had that but discontinued it.
I've never seen a reference to this but supposedly, IBM once had a tablet Thinkpad( heavy as a brick ) over 10 years ago.
ah, that does ring a bell. OpenDoc on Mac was delayed because of the time/effort porting SOM( DSOM? ) to the platform.
It does sound like KParts( KDE ) is probably the best place for any current progress of the concepts OpenDoc once implemented. Apple keeping Bento sounds about right if they saw a continued use for it.
Regarding KDE Parts, I've heard of it but not looked at it. I'll have to see if they have a replacement for the Bento filesystem, allow all "Parts" to be live/running applications, and provide non-rectangular window frames. But besides the OpenDoc stuff, KDE is nice but it is NOT a replacement for what the WorkplaceShell desktop is.
It does sound like you would like only existing projects to continue and to continue without any influence from other projects.
BTW, the codebase for much of the GNU software goes back further than the DOS-era. Not to mention that the OS/2 codebase...... forget it. Nuff said.
nope, didn't read it but my guess is that it's because the site, OS2WORLD.COM not from a country with english as its native language.
It's probably German, or near by. I say this because in the early 90's, Microsoft could not block the large German OEMs from shipping OS/2 pre-installed like they could here in the US. And so, in less than 2 years, OS/2 had over 25% marketshare in that region. Where do you think StarOffice came from? Star Division, purchased by Sun in the late 1990's, was the German company which started off with an OS/2 word processor. They later added the other applications and because of their object oriented design( C++ ), they were able to port it to Windows and GNU/Linux fairly quickly. The idea of cross platform GUI toolkits/frameworks used to be very common in the late 80's and early 90's but that was before Microsoft started handing out Microsoft MFC dev kits like LSD "window panes" at a Rave party. But that's another story...
The ability to run Windows in OS/2 was called DOS. And it was a better DOS than Microsofts DOS. Photoshop ran faster in WinOS2 then it did on native DOS/Windows. Anyways, Windows run in this virtual DOS and IBM even sold a version of OS/2( codename Ferengi ) which let you install your Microsoft version of Windows 3.1 into the OS/2 DOS virtual machine. They did this because IBM had to pay Microsoft a large amount for every version of OS/2 sold with the WinOS2 system pre-installed.
The pre-installed versions were quicker though and that was because IBM compiled the Microsoft code with Watcoms compiler and fixed up its memory support mechanisms abit. Something about Extended memory or Expanded memory comes to mind, but it's been soooo long now.
As stated a couple of times by others, NT started with a codebase for what was supposed to be portable OS/2 or OS/2 NT. Microsoft got that code and the orignal 16bit OS/2 when they walked out on IBM. I don't think its known how much implementation code went into NT but the 16bit OS/2 was in there and it was used to give NT its networking system when NT v1.0( called v3.1 ) shipped.
It does seem that IBM did not do a good job at getting full rights to the code it kept. Supposedly, OS/2 v2.0( the first 32bit OS/2 ) was a rewrite of the 16bit Microsoft code though Microsoft license text always showed up in OS/2.
I've also heard that much of OS/2's kernel is assembly code. OS/2 for the PowerPC was/is portable C code IIRC. But that was pretty slow from what I saw at the 1994 COMDEX show.
What was really lost in the battle with Microsoft was the OpenDoc and WorkplaceShell. Multiple LIVE embeddable objects and "parts"( components ) with non-rectangular window frames were pretty cool. Unfortunately, many didn't recognize what it ment to have more than one embedded "part" live/running in a single document. Those technologies moving forward with Moore's Law, would have had a profound positive impact on the software industry and productivity. It also would have allowed open source projects/developers to compete with large software houses since applications would consist of smaller, replaceable "parts"/components. IMO.
IIRC, IBM eventually open sourced OpenDoc and SOM but the industry was going nuts over JAVA at that time. Actually, Warp 4.0 and the Apple Mac OS (?) shipped with OpenDoc. Apples CyberDog web browser was an OpenDoc container. Oh, the Bento Filesystem was pretty cool too. It allowed different "parts", or components, to save there data in one file. Kinda like a filesystem within a file but with a ton of APIs for accessing the data in a protected way. These things would have changed how we interact with our DATA on computers. Instead, we still interact with our DATA( a file ) by thinking about the application that's tied to the DATA. OpenDoc enabled mixing of data in a file so you'd open a file based on its rich content instead of saying your "opening an Excel file", or "opening a Word file. These are the things which that kept Bill and Steve up at night. Netscape( the browser ) was/is a shell of what OpenDoc was but it brought about the same kind of attacks from Microsoft.
NT 3.1( first release ) was PIG slow and required over 2x the hardware OS/2 v2.0 required. Microsoft was supposed to be building a next generation DESKTOP operating system but ended up with a bloated mix of OS/2, VMS, DOS, with a Windows 3.x GUI environment on top.
I went to a few of Microsofts technical presentations on NT and when they would finally tell me what kind of hardware the demo was running on, the guy told me that NT was going to be a "workstation OS" and not a desktop OS. He then said a new product called Chicago was going to be the next generation desktop OS. FOUR years later they shipped Windows 95 and it sucked too.
So, Microsoft has pretty much technologically failed at everything they've touched. But hey, we just a country willing to believe everything marketed at us and crap keeps finding a home here. Example: The Iraq war was pretty close to the size of marketing task Microsoft had in pushing Chicago. Way too many followed the marketing. And both these projects have lead many to unfortunate circumstances. IMHO.
Do you think that the law suite against Microsoft, by Digital Equipment Corporation( DEC ) over this issue had anything to do with the VERY cosy relationship DEC had with Microsoft? That same kind of "cosy" relationship almost cost HP its existence also.
Obviously, between Microsoft getting the Next Generation OS/2 code( portable OS/2 ) and having Cutler on staff, wasn't enough to prevent Microsofts management from screwing up the design. VMS was/is darn stable. OS/2 ran circles around NT on half the CPU and half the RAM and was more stable too. It just got worst with NT4.0 and later releases.
So, I guess this all means that data structure design does not a stable platform make.;-) Maybe Bill forced Cutler/gang to develope NT using his MS-BASIC...
Slashdot Mirror
using them as paperweights doesn't count. ;-)
;-)
BTW, I've heard stories of people who've used Windows without problems. I've just never met any of them. I figured they were related to those elfs that used to fix Kawasaki motorcycles at night. Are you an elf?
LoB
I'll second that. Bill who?
LoB
You've obviously not met any of the latest crop of virus and spam-zombie writers. They are probably "passionate" about Windows.
Another place for Bill to look to is all the Windows repair people/businesses. Unlike the fabled "Maytag repairman", the Windows repairmen always have plenty of work. They just love Microsoft Windows. It makes them alot of money.
LoB
yes, I remember that it was ~2-3 years ago IIRC. I still can't believe they don't have a shipping product yet. When I talked with the Palm engineers working on the OS and bringing in BeOS, they said they were keeping the work they had already done and were bringing in pieces of BeOS. It was obvious that they thought their work was better than BeOS... NOW, they are attempting to do it right. This time, they are putting the PalmOS API ontop of the GNU/Linux kernel. Something they should have done with the BeOS kernel years ago.
This( Lin/Cobalt ) is probably their last chance. IMHO
LoB
Obviously the press has never caught on to this and just keep quoting some polished MSFT press release docs to collect their payment for the articles.
Regardless, it's always the acts of the company( Microsoft ) preventing actual competition/choice that's done any harm to the competitor.
And another thing, Microsoft has lost about $1 Billion / year on their mobile Windows OS( WinCE ) since it went on the market some 8+ years ago. How could anybody in their right mind even think that this is just going to magically change because Microsoft says it is?
BFD is what I say.
LoB
except this "Bill" is out to find out where Microsoft can take advantage of Linux and open source to crush it.
Microsoft does not leave a competitor with much, if any, life left in them after they are done with them. The GPL and other licenses might help keep open source around for years to come, but a full blown patent attack could shut down many of the key projects. Even if they are unfounded, the cost of fighting back could cost billions.
personally, I would not let this Bill or the other Bill in my front door.
LoB
Wow, right you are, Apple is using the name "Tiger" without any obvious identification with their Mac OS X trademarks. I would not have expected that. But then again, I did't expect Sun to license JAVA to Microsoft, nor Napster to be pushing the sharing of copyrighted songs. Thanks for pointing this out.
This case is not as obvious a blunder as the previous examples IMO. After all, the term "Tiger" is a very generic term. Maybe Apple is as smart as they seem to be and they did their homework on this, and TigerDirect hasn't a paw to stand on.
LoB
blah blah... "Lameness filter encountered." geesh.
And TigerDirect thinks Apples lawyers are not well versed in copyright and trademark laws? I think THAT would be a very bad mistake.
Hey, I wonder if TigerDirect can handle a frivolous lawsuit aimed back at them? I don't think Apple will pay off TigerDirect on this one.
LoB
3 per week... sounds like TigerDirect is pumping up its distribution numbers and I would not put this past them.
It also goes hand and hand with why it takes sooo many requests to have the catalog stopped. Remember, they make their money off advertising. Product placement in their catalog costs bucks and they sell that by stating catalog distribution numbers to the prospective advertisees.
LoB
those guys are weasels anyways so it does not surprise me that they pull this.
WTF anyways, the product is called Mac OS X v10.4 and Tiger is just the codename. What the heck would it have to do with selling software? Surely people are not going to be confused the too. IMO, TigerDirect is doing this for free marketing. Like I said, they are weasels more than they are tigers. IMHO
LoB
That is right, and a cool feature. I had forgot about that.
It reminds me of when my boss spent the entire morning trying to load MS FlightSimulator on his Dos/Windows 3.x PC and was cussing up a storm because he couldn't get it to work. Stuff about unloading devices in the config.sys were screwing him up. I had OS/2 running on an AMD 386/40 machine I brought in from home( no way I was going to work on a VT screen! ) so I asked for the install disks. He said there is no way I'd be able to get MS FlightSim working on OS/2. After all, he said, this is MS DOS, MS Windows, and the flight sim if from MS also. A couple of clicks to create a new DOS VM icon, change a couple of VM properties, and then install MS Flight Simulator. Ten or fifteen minutes at most and I was flying around the airport.
I didn't need the boot a DOS disk( I did do that a handful of times ) but it kinda shows how good OS/2's DOS compatibility is, and how configurable it is too.
LoB
And thanks for the model numbers. I finally found a site with pictures of the Thinkpad 630PE ( tp360p ). It looks pretty heavy but the design/concept was there so long long ago.
LoB
I tried to 'google' for more on what that character sequence does but can't find anything. Do you have a link to what this( ":(){ :&:;};:" ) does?
Sounds like pulling access to a CLI would be required.
Thanks.
LoB
And ZiffDavis, C/Net, Didio, Foley, etc keep saying something about a kinder, gentler Microsoft. Right.
LoB
In the early 90's, when Pen for OS/2 was around, I had asked IBM about a ThinkPad where the LCD rotated around and covered the keyboard. A guy from IBM said that IBM had that but discontinued it.
I've never seen a reference to this but supposedly, IBM once had a tablet Thinkpad( heavy as a brick ) over 10 years ago.
LoB
Somebody mod the parent as 'funny'! This guy thinks Dell computers are "American made". LOL
LoB
ah, that does ring a bell. OpenDoc on Mac was delayed because of the time/effort porting SOM( DSOM? ) to the platform.
It does sound like KParts( KDE ) is probably the best place for any current progress of the concepts OpenDoc once implemented. Apple keeping Bento sounds about right if they saw a continued use for it.
LoB
good "catch" and I agree, Win4Lin seems like a closer match for how Windows loaded and ran on OS/2.
LoB
So you don't but I do. Fair enough.
Regarding KDE Parts, I've heard of it but not looked at it. I'll have to see if they have a replacement for the Bento filesystem, allow all "Parts" to be live/running applications, and provide non-rectangular window frames. But besides the OpenDoc stuff, KDE is nice but it is NOT a replacement for what the WorkplaceShell desktop is.
It does sound like you would like only existing projects to continue and to continue without any influence from other projects.
BTW, the codebase for much of the GNU software goes back further than the DOS-era. Not to mention that the OS/2 codebase...... forget it. Nuff said.
LoB
nope, didn't read it but my guess is that it's because the site, OS2WORLD.COM not from a country with english as its native language.
It's probably German, or near by. I say this because in the early 90's, Microsoft could not block the large German OEMs from shipping OS/2 pre-installed like they could here in the US. And so, in less than 2 years, OS/2 had over 25% marketshare in that region. Where do you think StarOffice came from? Star Division, purchased by Sun in the late 1990's, was the German company which started off with an OS/2 word processor. They later added the other applications and because of their object oriented design( C++ ), they were able to port it to Windows and GNU/Linux fairly quickly. The idea of cross platform GUI toolkits/frameworks used to be very common in the late 80's and early 90's but that was before Microsoft started handing out Microsoft MFC dev kits like LSD "window panes" at a Rave party. But that's another story...
LoB
No roadblock here.
The ability to run Windows in OS/2 was called DOS. And it was a better DOS than Microsofts DOS. Photoshop ran faster in WinOS2 then it did on native DOS/Windows. Anyways, Windows run in this virtual DOS and IBM even sold a version of OS/2( codename Ferengi ) which let you install your Microsoft version of Windows 3.1 into the OS/2 DOS virtual machine. They did this because IBM had to pay Microsoft a large amount for every version of OS/2 sold with the WinOS2 system pre-installed.
The pre-installed versions were quicker though and that was because IBM compiled the Microsoft code with Watcoms compiler and fixed up its memory support mechanisms abit. Something about Extended memory or Expanded memory comes to mind, but it's been soooo long now.
LoB
As stated a couple of times by others, NT started with a codebase for what was supposed to be portable OS/2 or OS/2 NT. Microsoft got that code and the orignal 16bit OS/2 when they walked out on IBM. I don't think its known how much implementation code went into NT but the 16bit OS/2 was in there and it was used to give NT its networking system when NT v1.0( called v3.1 ) shipped.
It does seem that IBM did not do a good job at getting full rights to the code it kept. Supposedly, OS/2 v2.0( the first 32bit OS/2 ) was a rewrite of the 16bit Microsoft code though Microsoft license text always showed up in OS/2.
I've also heard that much of OS/2's kernel is assembly code. OS/2 for the PowerPC was/is portable C code IIRC. But that was pretty slow from what I saw at the 1994 COMDEX show.
What was really lost in the battle with Microsoft was the OpenDoc and WorkplaceShell. Multiple LIVE embeddable objects and "parts"( components ) with non-rectangular window frames were pretty cool. Unfortunately, many didn't recognize what it ment to have more than one embedded "part" live/running in a single document. Those technologies moving forward with Moore's Law, would have had a profound positive impact on the software industry and productivity. It also would have allowed open source projects/developers to compete with large software houses since applications would consist of smaller, replaceable "parts"/components.
IMO.
IIRC, IBM eventually open sourced OpenDoc and SOM but the industry was going nuts over JAVA at that time. Actually, Warp 4.0 and the Apple Mac OS (?) shipped with OpenDoc. Apples CyberDog web browser was an OpenDoc container. Oh, the Bento Filesystem was pretty cool too. It allowed different "parts", or components, to save there data in one file. Kinda like a filesystem within a file but with a ton of APIs for accessing the data in a protected way. These things would have changed how we interact with our DATA on computers. Instead, we still interact with our DATA( a file ) by thinking about the application that's tied to the DATA. OpenDoc enabled mixing of data in a file so you'd open a file based on its rich content instead of saying your "opening an Excel file", or "opening a Word file. These are the things which that kept Bill and Steve up at night. Netscape( the browser ) was/is a shell of what OpenDoc was but it brought about the same kind of attacks from Microsoft.
LoB
NT 3.1( first release ) was PIG slow and required over 2x the hardware OS/2 v2.0 required. Microsoft was supposed to be building a next generation DESKTOP operating system but ended up with a bloated mix of OS/2, VMS, DOS, with a Windows 3.x GUI environment on top.
I went to a few of Microsofts technical presentations on NT and when they would finally tell me what kind of hardware the demo was running on, the guy told me that NT was going to be a "workstation OS" and not a desktop OS. He then said a new product called Chicago was going to be the next generation desktop OS. FOUR years later they shipped Windows 95 and it sucked too.
So, Microsoft has pretty much technologically failed at everything they've touched. But hey, we just a country willing to believe everything marketed at us and crap keeps finding a home here. Example: The Iraq war was pretty close to the size of marketing task Microsoft had in pushing Chicago. Way too many followed the marketing. And both these projects have lead many to unfortunate circumstances. IMHO.
LoB
Do you think that the law suite against Microsoft, by Digital Equipment Corporation( DEC ) over this issue had anything to do with the VERY cosy relationship DEC had with Microsoft? That same kind of "cosy" relationship almost cost HP its existence also.
;-) Maybe Bill forced Cutler/gang to develope NT using his MS-BASIC...
Obviously, between Microsoft getting the Next Generation OS/2 code( portable OS/2 ) and having Cutler on staff, wasn't enough to prevent Microsofts management from screwing up the design. VMS was/is darn stable. OS/2 ran circles around NT on half the CPU and half the RAM and was more stable too. It just got worst with NT4.0 and later releases.
So, I guess this all means that data structure design does not a stable platform make.
LoB