that makes sense but why the heck don't they put a real barrier between the pilots and the passenger area? At least in prisons they have solid walls and bars to keep separation...
> Secondly I am wondering why after the first
> crash, air traffic control staffers didn't throw
> up a red flag.
I agree. They should have a nation wide warning when a plane is hijacked. It wouldn't stopped this but it might have helped save the 200 or so emergency response people killed knowing that another plane was heading it's way and that this was deliberate.
Maybe not but this type of data should be distributed as quick as possible so SOMEONE can put the pieces together.....
I don't fly much but I have wondered why the doors to the cockpit was so flimsy. So they lock it, big deal. Why isn't it armored? It's not like airplanes haven't been used for this type of distruction before ( World War II - Kamikaze's ).
I just heard a White House official saying that all kinds of new security will be enacted but nothing he mentioned would have stopped these people. Armored cockpit doors and armed pilots would have. Even having a few plainclothed security officials on each plane would help but I like having the regular flight crew armed since they would be well known by each member.
This shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't happen again. IMHO.
My thought is that it's a step in the direction we want to go. If we jump head first into 802.11 then we have to wait another 3-5 years for technology to shrink enough so we still have a light pocketable device at a reasonable price ($200 or less).
It took Microsoft over 6 years to come up with an adequate multi-threading OS and it requires almost 4 times the hardware of IBM's OS/2. If you don't think multi-threading and stablity are important then you've never had the pleasure of using a system that had these. Anyway my point is that we shouldn't be forced to wait til nano-hardware is available so that we can run some bloated OS and have wireless connectivity.
IMO, Microsoft is afraid people will start using their PDA's and PDA enabled phones to store their data. THEY want to control and charge you for use of YOUR data and they need the Windows hammer to beat that into you and every vendor who tries to do otherwise. 802.11 puts too much of a load on the smaller PDA's. Handera can do it but it takes
4 batteries and a large slot (CF). I believe that the Bluetooth for Palm will be on a SD card.
There is this thing called UWB that has potential for both your constant connected lan (ala 802.11) and is supposed to light weight/low power (ala Bluetooth). If we have to wait years then let's have what works now and move later.
I hope 7feet is on the low side. 15feet would be fine IMHO. 15feet would allow for a home to have pretty full coverage where you would want it (livingroom) and the reception area of business's, or restaurants. If you need a full blown computing platform with wireless then 802.11 comes in. That's my take on it.
Thanks for your thoughts.
LoB
(The collective didn't run Windows but was virus prone. Go figure...)
Geesh, get a TRGPro or a Handera 330. Granted if you NEED color this isn't a choice. But the TRGPro had CF support for years. Now the Handera 330 has the CF slot and the SD slot.
I wish those idiots from Redmond would stop messing with Bluetooth. They have the press dis'ing it left and right. Pretty soon you will ONLY have 802.11 for good wireless and the device will HAVE to be large and bulky cause of the higher requirments.
There is a Bluetooth SD card coming this fall so that m505 isn't wasted of all you wanted it for was wireless ( wondering why you bought it if it didn't do what you wanted? ).
What are you doing using a computer to post? Seems smoke signals would do the trick at a fraction of the cost. You have to worry about getting the walls of your cave blackened but you save a whole lot of money.....
Sure glad everybody doesn't think like you or we whould still be grunting and dragging our knuckles on the ground when we walk.
Be adventurous and try something new every now and then. You might find things more usefull then you think they are.
Bingo. The human brain is designed to take the easiest path in most cases. The easiest path is very seldom the best path. There are so many examples ( a big on in Redmond ) that I will leave it as an exercise for the student.;)
LoB
Re:Computer Literacy( DOS vs Mac )
on
Linux Win In Schools
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You have it wrong. The guy said to teach without the GUI. I'll tell you a story which might change your mind...
While working on a grant at SDSU, I heard of an instructor in Maryland who found that her students who used a DOS-based PC to write english papers received better grades then did the Apple Mac counterparts. A 2 year study found that she was correct in that the DOS-based PC users used larger words, had a higher wordcount per sentance, and used more complete sentence structures. The students were enrolled in an English class because they didn't fail the entrance exam but also weren't good enough to bypass the English requirements altogether. The English department at the university didn't determine exactly what was going on but figured it was because at a DOS-prompt, you have to think about what you need to do next. In a GUI, you are prompted.
The DOS-based users has the DOS prompt staring at them and THEY had to figure out what the next step was. When they got to the wordprocessor they were already in a higer thinking mode then when ICONS lead you thru the task.
Once you're well versed and trained in the skills the computer is HELPING you with, you don't need to have such a bare-bones interface to get to what you want to do. Teach kids how to think and they will take off from there.
Remember those "friendly" aliens from Mars in "Mars Attacks"? Swap in Bill Gates for each alien and then think about what's the fuss about Bluetooth....
The problem is this: Microsoft is dis'ing Bluetooth and pushing 802.11 for all the wrong reasons. 802.11 is a good technology but it forces the small device( ie Palms ) to be bigger. WinCE devices are already FAT because the OS and the plethora of capabilities pre-packaged. This is why Microsoft is pushing 802.11 over Bluetooth. It takes care of two big headaches it has.....Palm based handhelds are becoming the place were users keep their data and the computer/network is a backup or copy of the PDA. This isn't what Microsoft wants because it wants to own your data and charge you to access it. By pushing for the death of Bluetooth it stalls Palms move into wireless, leaves Palm handhelds stranded by requiring it be "tethered" to a computer they can keep track of, and gets another shot at moving your data into it's hands instead of yours.
Another technology attacked to preserve the almighty Microsoft corporation.....
What I'd like to see is the base 3d animation packages open sourced or under $500 and then you buy the fancy effect plug-ins or use open source ones. This would be like the IBM PC but for 3d. Hey that rymes.:)
It would allow a base package everyone can mess with and get going on but those special effects that are cutting edge can make the creators money until the freeware guys say, "hey that's cool, I'm going to do that". It would be time for new effects anyway so as the sales slow for plug-in 3dX, there would be new effect 3dY. Innovation, rewards, and growth....
As you can tell, I'm torn between everything being free and someone being paid for innovative work. Anyway, this is great news indeed.
Not related to old ads but I built my first computer in the mid 1980's from spare parts after reading an article in Microcornucpia Magazine. It was the Xerox 820 which was a z80 maching running CP/M (had turbo C and learned C on it at 4Mhz along with wordstar) but the cool part was the 8086 co-processor board that alowed me to run CPM/86 at the same time as the z80 CPM was running. I could switch back and forth with the keyboard.
I wish I had pictures because this was a funny looking machine that I built. It used a tall slim shipping case that was used to ship spare parts for Scientific Atlanta's sonar systems. I stood the case on it's side so the removable top was not the back and the floppy was installed internally and exposed to the front. It looked like todays tower case. The CRT was a bare 12v green screen from a ATM that I fed the RGB signals thru seperate coax cables.
If anybody remembers the Xerox 820, it was a IMAC predicessor since it was a all-in-one design with the connectors/Mobo and monitor in one case (maybe even the keyboard). I only had the manual and parts so mine looked borg'ish.
Ah, the good old days..... I still remember my roomate saying that 4Mhz would be too slow. He had a PC from LeadingEdge that had a TURBO switch and ran at 4 or 8Mhz. I said 4Mhz was plenty fast and it was for the first couple of weeks while I learned the CPM commands, wordstar, and C. Then it got really painfully slow as I moved faster then it (10 finger typist since the 70's;).
I really miss the days of Microcornucopia and the original Byte magazine too.:(
I had MicroPort UNIX on my 286 back in the 80's and then shifted to Consensus 386. This was in the 1980's on 286 and 386 hardware and had real multitasking. The GUI really wasn't available on the PC but Windows and OS/2 were just starting, as was the XWindow System. I was amazed that WordPerfect cost me $250 for DOS but over $500 for these Unix's.
I think it was the fact that these UNIX vendors didn't go for volume pricing like Microsoft did and so it remained on workstations and up instead of on the PC hardware. But why did the application vendors do the same and charged too much for UNIX versions?
In 1991, NT 3.1 sucked compared to OS/2 2.0 since OS/2 would run on a 386 with 10MB of RAM and could run Windows, a Netware client, and tcp/ip networking along with a X-Server. The base system blew DOS/Windows out of the water but the extras were very expensive ( $250 for just the TCP/IP stack and another $250 for the X-Server ).
Anyways, UNIX's on the 386 were 32bit and provided protected mode OS's with a flat memory model in the 1980's and OS/2(32bit) had this around 1991. Microsoft already had it's monopoly by 1990 and started making full use of it to stop OS/2 while the UNIX crowd stayed high priced and on high-end hardware. I saw a pre-release presentation of NT 3.1 by Microsoft and when I proded the presenter on the hardware requirements he said that NT was being positioned toward workstations and that Microsoft had a project called Chicago which would be their new DESKTOP OS. Remember that NT WAS advertised as the next great desktop OS until it was known to have HUGE hardware requirments. The pre-announcement of Chicago stalled the market for 5 years and the press helped that along....
It's funny that a cheap UNIX-like system is around now which goes 180 degrees from the UNIX of yesteryear and both apps and the OS are essentually free and this combination has the monster of Redmond running for its life(scrambling at least;)
LoB
MS-DOS: Bought QDOS for $50,000, which was in turn was a ripoff of CP/M Windows 1, 2 and 3: Too crappy for comment. Windows NT: Innovated directly from OS/2. Windows 95: MS innovated huge hunks of it from Apple and even bigger hunks from NeXTstep.
Now didn't Windows 95 get its user interface from HP's NewWave? For customers I couldn't get onto OS/2, I would install NewWave over Windows and introduct them to the idea of OBJECT. Not just desktop icon objects but DATA OBJECTs. The way the got the long object names was via an index file which mapped into the real names. I had heard that Microsoft hired the NewWave people from HP to help with Chicago. It was really funny to hear how badly the OS could use threads. There still isn't anything on the PC that does threads as well as OS/2. IMO
Windows 98: Win95 with the Finder ripoff replaced by a Web Browser innovated from Netscape. Windows XP: Windows NT with just about everyone's (AOL, Real, etc.) product innovated into the Operating
System.
I was really really sad to hear the Sun had signed a licensing deal with Microsoft in the first place. That one act kept Java from the desktop as an application foundation. Microsoft did just what they wanted to do, stop java on Windows or at least control it.
But wait, there is hope. Java is doing well on the servers and it's doing well on phones and soon in TV's. Where Java NEEDS to go is the desktop and Microsoft opened the door. By not installing their JVM in the OS, OEM's can put another, full featured one, in. Remember the days when companies with great ideas could go to OEM's and get them to pre-install applications? There is no duplicity now that Microsoft is removing the MS-VM.
This could be a day of celebration because unlike the browser war, Java is very well known, and liked, all the way up the management chain.
The door is open for IBM and/or Sun to start making deals. AND FAST!
If OEM's could install the JVM, that would be GREAT!
As it is, many large business's won't install another JVM and force software vendors to be compatible with Microsofts JVM. That could now change and the newer JVMs are far better then that ole clunky one Microsoft shipped.
Now the question is: What will Microsoft do to keep OEM's from installing the JVM?
This is Microsoft putting up a smoke screen. They will give some now so that it won't be part of the settlement later. Then they pull the rug out from under the OEM's again. Look at the XML junk that's going on now. The press thinks Microsofts use of XML means it's opening up it's formats. Wrong, binary is a open format too and all they did was keep changing how they used the format. XML will be the same thing. Anyway, it's also the fact that when a OEM puts an app on the desktop Microsoft has made it very difficult or impossible for that app to be the default via the Exporer. The user will have to actuall click on the app icon and then use the file-open menu. Clicking on the file directly will bring up Microsofts application already loaded with the file.
This will only confuse the user and OEM's aren't going to want this.
Microsoft NEEDs to become a OS company and a application company or the monopoly will persist til the end of time. IMHO
something which made them pull 50% of their PC's off the Comdex floor the morning of the show. Hummmm, what was it.... Was it the fact that OS/2 was installed on all those PC's? Bingo!
Excellent question! Here I am attempting to run my business using Linux and OS/2 but there is only one solution I've found for eCommerce. That's RedHat's CCVS. My Merchant Bank requires VITAL protocol compatibility and IBM doesn't have a Linux solution. They have Microsoft Windows, Solaris, and AIX solutions but not Linux.
So were is the $1 billion going? We're talking server processing here and not desktops......
VisualAge for Java is WAY behind the other OS's so it appears IBM doesn't want to lead with Linux anywhere.....
You might have hit a nail on the head there too. The IBM'ers have customers which MUST have 5 digit uptime. The stuff has to work. The Microsoft side can deal with reinstallations, memory leaks in MFCxx.DLL, etc because reboots don't turn customers eyes like seeing a NYSE trading terminal goind down would.
note: I have no idea if NYSE use IBM or MS, it's just an example.
I've seen IBM's way of releasing software and when you get it, it works. The Microsoft way is to dump it on the customer and fix bugs later as the complaint's come in. IMHO
The thing I always remind people is that no matter how much you dislike Microsoft, they are still one of the largest
companies in America and they didn't get that way by making bad decisions and backing stupid ventures. I don't
think they would make a move on something they weren't guaranteed to at least break even on.
Wow that is not true. Microsofts sole purpose in buisness is to make money. I agree to that but the way the do it is not been by making good products. It's been by maintaining their monopoly. PERIOD. The money they spent on licensing Java from Sun and corrupting it on the Windows platform didn't make them money. Or how about the Millions they paid SpyGlass for Mosaic only to eventually rewrite it as Internet Explorer v3(?). Remember, they gave that product away too while Netscape was selling theirs for $50/ea and had a massive amount of the market.
These are just some of the examples of the fact that Microsoft makes money by monopoly and their business goal is always to maintain that monopoly so they can do to the competition what they did to Java on the client, to Netscape Navigator, etc.
These other "ventures", Xbox, UltimateTV,.Net, etc are just another example of them protecting their monopoly. They will never call the Xbox a PC, but that is what it is, and mark my words it will someday run full MS Windows applications ( most of the FROM MICROSOFT ). They don't install the dll's now so they can call it a console and keep the label "PC" away from it. The DOJ wouldn't like that.... Anyway, there are many battles today that Microsoft has to fight because of the Internet. The INet has allowed for so many new innovations in how we and our "tools" interact that each has a potential of changing Microsofts monopoly status.
That is the only reason they are backing these products/services ( or many in the past ). Making money is their goal. By protecting the monopoly the goal is a given.
Are you kidding? Do you know how much money I've saved by not using Microsoft junk? As a software developer ( computer savy ) all my friends keep asking me to help them fix their Windows machines so I'm not without some of the head aches. I'm refusing most requests these days because it hurts so much. I do offer to freely install Linux on any of their computers though.
Yes, I could have made a lot of money fixing Microsoft products but that is like Hell where you keep doing the same things over and over and over again.
If using OS/2 was "hurting" then all I can say is "thank you sir may I please have another?".:)
Anyway, if your are rooting against "Microsloth" (gee, I bet that bit of juvenilia make you feel witty and a big hit with the ladies), you should encourage stupid business decisions such as their deal with Spyglass.
Oh, believe me I do love to see them pushing out new buzz words/strategies each month. Screwing companies out of the IP like the attempted with Spyglass shouldn't be accepted no matter how big the monopoly is.
By the way, Mosaic wasn't obsolete when they licensed it. You colored the facts just like a true Microsoft lemming.
sorry but Microsloth only paid Spyglass after they had to threaten to expose the financial books of Microsloth. It must have been in the contract that Spyglass could do that. After the legal request that Microsloths books be opened, Microsloth offered a single payment for the rights to the source code to Mosaic.
I guess that was Spyglass's exit strategy. Just like all the other Microsloth "partners". When you take money from Microsloth, your door will be closing soon. IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
that makes sense but why the heck don't they put a real barrier between the pilots and the passenger area? At least in prisons they have solid walls and bars to keep separation...
LoB
> Secondly I am wondering why after the first
> crash, air traffic control staffers didn't throw
> up a red flag.
I agree. They should have a nation wide warning when a plane is hijacked. It wouldn't stopped this but it might have helped save the 200 or so emergency response people killed knowing that another plane was heading it's way and that this was deliberate.
Maybe not but this type of data should be distributed as quick as possible so SOMEONE can put the pieces together.....
:( It's a sad day indeed.
LoB
I don't fly much but I have wondered why the doors to the cockpit was so flimsy. So they lock it, big deal. Why isn't it armored? It's not like airplanes haven't been used for this type of distruction before ( World War II - Kamikaze's ).
I just heard a White House official saying that all kinds of new security will be enacted but nothing he mentioned would have stopped these people. Armored cockpit doors and armed pilots would have. Even having a few plainclothed security officials on each plane would help but I like having the regular flight crew armed since they would be well known by each member.
This shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't happen again. IMHO.
LoB
My thought is that it's a step in the direction we want to go. If we jump head first into 802.11 then we have to wait another 3-5 years for technology to shrink enough so we still have a light pocketable device at a reasonable price ($200 or less).
It took Microsoft over 6 years to come up with an adequate multi-threading OS and it requires almost 4 times the hardware of IBM's OS/2. If you don't think multi-threading and stablity are important then you've never had the pleasure of using a system that had these. Anyway my point is that we shouldn't be forced to wait til nano-hardware is available so that we can run some bloated OS and have wireless connectivity.
IMO, Microsoft is afraid people will start using their PDA's and PDA enabled phones to store their data. THEY want to control and charge you for use of YOUR data and they need the Windows hammer to beat that into you and every vendor who tries to do otherwise. 802.11 puts too much of a load on the smaller PDA's. Handera can do it but it takes
4 batteries and a large slot (CF). I believe that the Bluetooth for Palm will be on a SD card.
There is this thing called UWB that has potential for both your constant connected lan (ala 802.11) and is supposed to light weight/low power (ala Bluetooth). If we have to wait years then let's have what works now and move later.
I hope 7feet is on the low side. 15feet would be fine IMHO. 15feet would allow for a home to have pretty full coverage where you would want it (livingroom) and the reception area of business's, or restaurants. If you need a full blown computing platform with wireless then 802.11 comes in. That's my take on it.
Thanks for your thoughts.
LoB
(The collective didn't run Windows but was virus prone. Go figure...)
Geesh, get a TRGPro or a Handera 330. Granted if you NEED color this isn't a choice. But the TRGPro had CF support for years. Now the Handera 330 has the CF slot and the SD slot.
I wish those idiots from Redmond would stop messing with Bluetooth. They have the press dis'ing it left and right. Pretty soon you will ONLY have 802.11 for good wireless and the device will HAVE to be large and bulky cause of the higher requirments.
There is a Bluetooth SD card coming this fall so that m505 isn't wasted of all you wanted it for was wireless ( wondering why you bought it if it didn't do what you wanted? ).
LoB
What are you doing using a computer to post? Seems smoke signals would do the trick at a fraction of the cost. You have to worry about getting the walls of your cave blackened but you save a whole lot of money.....
Sure glad everybody doesn't think like you or we whould still be grunting and dragging our knuckles on the ground when we walk.
Be adventurous and try something new every now and then. You might find things more usefull then you think they are.
LoB
Charge-N-Run
Bingo. The human brain is designed to take the easiest path in most cases. The easiest path is very seldom the best path. There are so many examples ( a big on in Redmond ) that I will leave it as an exercise for the student. ;)
LoB
You have it wrong. The guy said to teach without the GUI. I'll tell you a story which might change your mind...
While working on a grant at SDSU, I heard of an instructor in Maryland who found that her students who used a DOS-based PC to write english papers received better grades then did the Apple Mac counterparts. A 2 year study found that she was correct in that the DOS-based PC users used larger words, had a higher wordcount per sentance, and used more complete sentence structures. The students were enrolled in an English class because they didn't fail the entrance exam but also weren't good enough to bypass the English requirements altogether. The English department at the university didn't determine exactly what was going on but figured it was because at a DOS-prompt, you have to think about what you need to do next. In a GUI, you are prompted.
The DOS-based users has the DOS prompt staring at them and THEY had to figure out what the next step was. When they got to the wordprocessor they were already in a higer thinking mode then when ICONS lead you thru the task.
Once you're well versed and trained in the skills the computer is HELPING you with, you don't need to have such a bare-bones interface to get to what you want to do. Teach kids how to think and they will take off from there.
LoB
Remember those "friendly" aliens from Mars in "Mars Attacks"? Swap in Bill Gates for each alien and then think about what's the fuss about Bluetooth....
The problem is this: Microsoft is dis'ing Bluetooth and pushing 802.11 for all the wrong reasons. 802.11 is a good technology but it forces the small device( ie Palms ) to be bigger. WinCE devices are already FAT because the OS and the plethora of capabilities pre-packaged. This is why Microsoft is pushing 802.11 over Bluetooth. It takes care of two big headaches it has.....Palm based handhelds are becoming the place were users keep their data and the computer/network is a backup or copy of the PDA. This isn't what Microsoft wants because it wants to own your data and charge you to access it. By pushing for the death of Bluetooth it stalls Palms move into wireless, leaves Palm handhelds stranded by requiring it be "tethered" to a computer they can keep track of, and gets another shot at moving your data into it's hands instead of yours.
Another technology attacked to preserve the almighty Microsoft corporation.....
What I'd like to see is the base 3d animation packages open sourced or under $500 and then you buy the fancy effect plug-ins or use open source ones. This would be like the IBM PC but for 3d. Hey that rymes. :)
It would allow a base package everyone can mess with and get going on but those special effects that are cutting edge can make the creators money until the freeware guys say, "hey that's cool, I'm going to do that". It would be time for new effects anyway so as the sales slow for plug-in 3dX, there would be new effect 3dY. Innovation, rewards, and growth....
As you can tell, I'm torn between everything being free and someone being paid for innovative work. Anyway, this is great news indeed.
LoB
that was a Xerox 820 II and not the 820. That 820 II was way faster since it ran at 4MHz instead of the 2.5MHz of the plain 820. ;)
Not related to old ads but I built my first computer in the mid 1980's from spare parts after reading an article in Microcornucpia Magazine. It was the Xerox 820 which was a z80 maching running CP/M (had turbo C and learned C on it at 4Mhz along with wordstar) but the cool part was the 8086 co-processor board that alowed me to run CPM/86 at the same time as the z80 CPM was running. I could switch back and forth with the keyboard.
:(
I wish I had pictures because this was a funny looking machine that I built. It used a tall slim shipping case that was used to ship spare parts for Scientific Atlanta's sonar systems. I stood the case on it's side so the removable top was not the back and the floppy was installed internally and exposed to the front. It looked like todays tower case. The CRT was a bare 12v green screen from a ATM that I fed the RGB signals thru seperate coax cables.
If anybody remembers the Xerox 820, it was a IMAC predicessor since it was a all-in-one design with the connectors/Mobo and monitor in one case (maybe even the keyboard). I only had the manual and parts so mine looked borg'ish.
Ah, the good old days..... I still remember my roomate saying that 4Mhz would be too slow. He had a PC from LeadingEdge that had a TURBO switch and ran at 4 or 8Mhz. I said 4Mhz was plenty fast and it was for the first couple of weeks while I learned the CPM commands, wordstar, and C. Then it got really painfully slow as I moved faster then it (10 finger typist since the 70's;).
I really miss the days of Microcornucopia and the original Byte magazine too.
I had MicroPort UNIX on my 286 back in the 80's and then shifted to Consensus 386. This was in the 1980's on 286 and 386 hardware and had real multitasking. The GUI really wasn't available on the PC but Windows and OS/2 were just starting, as was the XWindow System. I was amazed that WordPerfect cost me $250 for DOS but over $500 for these Unix's. I think it was the fact that these UNIX vendors didn't go for volume pricing like Microsoft did and so it remained on workstations and up instead of on the PC hardware. But why did the application vendors do the same and charged too much for UNIX versions? In 1991, NT 3.1 sucked compared to OS/2 2.0 since OS/2 would run on a 386 with 10MB of RAM and could run Windows, a Netware client, and tcp/ip networking along with a X-Server. The base system blew DOS/Windows out of the water but the extras were very expensive ( $250 for just the TCP/IP stack and another $250 for the X-Server ). Anyways, UNIX's on the 386 were 32bit and provided protected mode OS's with a flat memory model in the 1980's and OS/2(32bit) had this around 1991. Microsoft already had it's monopoly by 1990 and started making full use of it to stop OS/2 while the UNIX crowd stayed high priced and on high-end hardware. I saw a pre-release presentation of NT 3.1 by Microsoft and when I proded the presenter on the hardware requirements he said that NT was being positioned toward workstations and that Microsoft had a project called Chicago which would be their new DESKTOP OS. Remember that NT WAS advertised as the next great desktop OS until it was known to have HUGE hardware requirments. The pre-announcement of Chicago stalled the market for 5 years and the press helped that along.... It's funny that a cheap UNIX-like system is around now which goes 180 degrees from the UNIX of yesteryear and both apps and the OS are essentually free and this combination has the monster of Redmond running for its life(scrambling at least;) LoB
Windows 1, 2 and 3: Too crappy for comment.
Windows NT
Windows 95
Now didn't Windows 95 get its user interface from HP's NewWave? For customers I couldn't get onto OS/2, I would install NewWave over Windows and introduct them to the idea of OBJECT. Not just desktop icon objects but DATA OBJECTs. The way the got the long object names was via an index file which mapped into the real names. I had heard that Microsoft hired the NewWave people from HP to help with Chicago. It was really funny to hear how badly the OS could use threads. There still isn't anything on the PC that does threads as well as OS/2. IMO
Windows 98: Win95 with the Finder ripoff replaced by a Web Browser innovated from Netscape.
Windows XP: Windows NT with just about everyone's (AOL, Real, etc.) product innovated into the Operating System.
Lob
I was really really sad to hear the Sun had signed a licensing deal with Microsoft in the first place. That one act kept Java from the desktop as an application foundation. Microsoft did just what they wanted to do, stop java on Windows or at least control it.
But wait, there is hope. Java is doing well on the servers and it's doing well on phones and soon in TV's. Where Java NEEDS to go is the desktop and Microsoft opened the door. By not installing their JVM in the OS, OEM's can put another, full featured one, in. Remember the days when companies with great ideas could go to OEM's and get them to pre-install applications? There is no duplicity now that Microsoft is removing the MS-VM.
This could be a day of celebration because unlike the browser war, Java is very well known, and liked, all the way up the management chain.
The door is open for IBM and/or Sun to start making deals. AND FAST!
LoB
As it is, many large business's won't install another JVM and force software vendors to be compatible with Microsofts JVM. That could now change and the newer JVMs are far better then that ole clunky one Microsoft shipped.
Now the question is: What will Microsoft do to keep OEM's from installing the JVM?
LoB
This is Microsoft putting up a smoke screen. They will give some now so that it won't be part of the settlement later. Then they pull the rug out from under the OEM's again. Look at the XML junk that's going on now. The press thinks Microsofts use of XML means it's opening up it's formats. Wrong, binary is a open format too and all they did was keep changing how they used the format. XML will be the same thing. Anyway, it's also the fact that when a OEM puts an app on the desktop Microsoft has made it very difficult or impossible for that app to be the default via the Exporer. The user will have to actuall click on the app icon and then use the file-open menu. Clicking on the file directly will bring up Microsofts application already loaded with the file.
This will only confuse the user and OEM's aren't going to want this.
Microsoft NEEDs to become a OS company and a application company or the monopoly will persist til the end of time. IMHO
LoB
something which made them pull 50% of their PC's off the Comdex floor the morning of the show. Hummmm, what was it.... Was it the fact that OS/2 was installed on all those PC's? Bingo!
LoB
So were is the $1 billion going? We're talking server processing here and not desktops......
VisualAge for Java is WAY behind the other OS's so it appears IBM doesn't want to lead with Linux anywhere.....
LoB
Fighting to keep away from Microsofts claws.
You might have hit a nail on the head there too. The IBM'ers have customers which MUST have 5 digit uptime. The stuff has to work. The Microsoft side can deal with reinstallations, memory leaks in MFCxx.DLL, etc because reboots don't turn customers eyes like seeing a NYSE trading terminal goind down would.
note: I have no idea if NYSE use IBM or MS, it's just an example.
I've seen IBM's way of releasing software and when you get it, it works. The Microsoft way is to dump it on the customer and fix bugs later as the complaint's come in. IMHO
LoB
Wow that is not true. Microsofts sole purpose in buisness is to make money. I agree to that but the way the do it is not been by making good products. It's been by maintaining their monopoly. PERIOD. The money they spent on licensing Java from Sun and corrupting it on the Windows platform didn't make them money. Or how about the Millions they paid SpyGlass for Mosaic only to eventually rewrite it as Internet Explorer v3(?). Remember, they gave that product away too while Netscape was selling theirs for $50/ea and had a massive amount of the market.
These are just some of the examples of the fact that Microsoft makes money by monopoly and their business goal is always to maintain that monopoly so they can do to the competition what they did to Java on the client, to Netscape Navigator, etc. .Net, etc are just another example of them protecting their monopoly. They will never call the Xbox a PC, but that is what it is, and mark my words it will someday run full MS Windows applications ( most of the FROM MICROSOFT ). They don't install the dll's now so they can call it a console and keep the label "PC" away from it. The DOJ wouldn't like that.... Anyway, there are many battles today that Microsoft has to fight because of the Internet. The INet has allowed for so many new innovations in how we and our "tools" interact that each has a potential of changing Microsofts monopoly status.
These other "ventures", Xbox, UltimateTV,
That is the only reason they are backing these products/services ( or many in the past ). Making money is their goal. By protecting the monopoly the goal is a given.
Until now. ;>
Lob
Are you kidding? Do you know how much money I've saved by not using Microsoft junk? As a software developer ( computer savy ) all my friends keep asking me to help them fix their Windows machines so I'm not without some of the head aches. I'm refusing most requests these days because it hurts so much. I do offer to freely install Linux on any of their computers though.
:)
Yes, I could have made a lot of money fixing Microsoft products but that is like Hell where you keep doing the same things over and over and over again.
If using OS/2 was "hurting" then all I can say is "thank you sir may I please have another?".
LoB
Oh, believe me I do love to see them pushing out new buzz words/strategies each month. Screwing companies out of the IP like the attempted with Spyglass shouldn't be accepted no matter how big the monopoly is.
By the way, Mosaic wasn't obsolete when they licensed it. You colored the facts just like a true Microsoft lemming.
LoB
I guess that was Spyglass's exit strategy. Just like all the other Microsloth "partners". When you take money from Microsloth, your door will be closing soon. IMHO
LoB