>If their stuff doesn't work, then they will try >other stuff to sell i.e NT boxes and now Linux. >You might as well be the one selling other >products your client wants if they don't want >your stuff. Right? Wrong. As far as OS/2 is concerned, it outperforms and is more reliable then NT but customers don't seem to want that. They want NT because everybody else is supposed to have it. According to the press just after Windows 95 shipped. When customers insist on an inferior product it is a smart company that ramps up its services for that product. They, IBM are making $$ hand over fist fixing Windows NT problems over and over again. Just look around, Windows is always breaking and at ~$200/hour those who are willing to take pay for a living hell are making some big $$. That is my take on what is going on with IBM pushing NT. To bad businesses are so dumb about selecting it but a working OS/2 or Linux machine gets no attention while Windows has MS fed press and every 10th word out of most employees mouth is Micros~1 when computers are discussed. Go figure.
This is what they do with the HPFS386 installable filesystem and SMB services. It is what allows Warp Server to blow NT out of the water serving files. Parts of it are actually written in assembly code. Do you want to do that with a web server? I think this is where Linux shines. The OS is tight, small, and simple so OSS works because you can have user space code running quite fast. So far all the tests I've seen pitting NT IIS to Linux/Apache were for static pages and there are far better choices on Linux for that type of web server. Anybody seen Apache and IIS tests running dynamic pages?
I'm wondering why nobody is in prison for perjury after all the backtracking that went on in round one. What was up with those videos? Funny how Bill G. says he didn't know anything about the Java case yet he was right in there pulling strings to get Apple to drop Netscape and Java. Can a civil perjury case be filed against them?
> 1) You can not sell any other operating system > without threats and damage from Micros~` > > Interesting. Why is it that lots of OEM's do sell other OS's, including Dell and Compaq. When did they start doing that? Compaq just bought Digital so it has a base large enough to require support. Wasn't Compaq threatened to lose its license to Windows because it installed Netscape? Not a very friendly thing for a friendly Micros~1 to do. Compaq is not very close to Micros~1 any more. Recent history too.
> 2) You can not add software to that package except under strict scrutany by Micros~1 > > You cannot *REMOVE* software from a windows installation, you can add anything you > like. Lots of OEM's including Toshiba and IBM have been shipping Netscape for years, > just not at the expense of removing IE. You also can't alter the boot up sequence. And they pay dearly for installing those products too. They can't put those products icons on the desktop though can they? Customers have to go find those packages instead of having them right up front.
> 3) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way and still sell its OS on your PCs > > Well, since IBM is really the only company that both sells commercial software and sells > PC's, it's hard to judge based on one case. HP and Compaq have software divisions but why don't they have anything that competes with Micros~1? Same reason why nobody will stand up againt them in court. Fear. IBM is about the only one willing to stand up and fight and even thought they are making alot of money supporting broken Windows installation/products they are also paying for it. As the current news stories are showing us.
> 1) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way.
> Strange that many companies DO compete with Microsoft, and still stay quite up to date. > Intuit for instance. Funny the government already told Micros~1 to stay away from them and you chose them as your one example.
> 2) You can not write software for any other operating system and keep up-to-date on Windows. > > Strange that Intuit does this. So does Corel. > So does IBM (remember, they write more > software for NT than anyone else besides MS > right now). So does Perforce, Rational, and > more companies than I can name. There goes Intuit again. Do you really think Corel gets the time of day from Micros~1? They are fighting the good fight with what they have but since MS Office has been bundled with Windows, they don't have much market left. Again, IBM pays for dearly for doing this, they are just big enough to be able to afford it.
> 3) You can not grow your business very large or Micros~1 will see you as a threat. > > Strange that Microsoft doesn't see companies > like SAP as a threat. They're one of the top > selling companies on the market. This is a desktop product? We are talking aobut Microsoft's leverage of the desktop here. If they are allowed to continue into the server space, SAP will be attacked the same way others have been.
> 4) If Micros~1 decides your market is desirable you should be prepared to exit that market. > > Only if you're incompetant and have only > managed to stay in business if you have no > competition. Clearly, lots of companies compete > with Micrsoft and win. Again, Intuit is one. > Lotus is another. Microsoft doesn't > automatically dominate in every market they > enter. There is Intuit again.... Lotus has IBMs $$ behind it and they are putting up a good fight. Exchange should be no competition for Notes but look at what it has done so far. Boy it is even at something like rev 6 even though it is only a couple of years old. FUD and Micros~1 is attacking it with MS LookOut by preinstalls in Windows.
Kind a poor case you put up there. The history is there, you just have to be more then 20 years old to have actually seen it happen and be aware of it. Some 15 years of it. IIRC
It is about advertizing dollars. When I asked why the 2 latest NOS shootouts didn't include OS/2 Warp Server or e-Business I was told that IBM wasn't marketing the product and it didn't have marketshare. Capability was not even mentioned. Put that with the $$ Micros~1 spends on advertizing and you have Ziff-Davis doing anything Micros~1 wants. That includes drumming up news about other operating systems. Didn't anyone notice last year that OS/2 and Linux press coverage started when the court case started? Will all this end when the court case ends? I say it will but that also depends on the remedies imposed on Micros~1 by the courts.
Re:Journalism (or "How I Learned to Love to Flame"
on
IBM & Microsoft Rift
·
· Score: 1
In 1994, the year Warp v3 shipped IBM was selling 1 million copies of OS/2 per month. They could not break into the preload business and we now know why. The total OS/2 install base was around 15 million worldwide and until March of 1995 IBM was heavily advertising OS/2. Nun ads and the like. One million copies per month at mostly retail is an amazing number. I was actually having people finally start asking me about OS/2 because of all the press and even in spite of the constant harassing Ziff-Davis and others published. Fighting a ghost for 3 years, Chicago, was appearently taking its toll on IBM and after all, Micros~1 kept advertising all the amazing things that this ghost would do real soon now. OS/2 would have kicked butt had Micros~1 not been allowed to use the press to lie to the public and be allowed to annouce a product that was not going to ship for 3 years. I'll say it again, a Ziff-Davis reporter in Europe told people that IBM was killing OS/2 around 1995 and that lie made it all over the world. The head of a Denver CO hospital was evaluating OS/2 for a complete replacement of DOS/Windows until he heard the lie that IBM was killing OS/2. THIS IS WHAT KEPT WINDOWS ALIVE. Illegal marketing practices by Micros~1 and it PR arm, Ziff-Davis and company. IMHO
Lack of functionality? What functionality was missing in OS/2 in 1995? Functionality is why I got ahold of the beta of OS/2 v2.0 in 1990(IIRC). Up until some recent (2-3 years) new devices like DVD, OS/2 has been far more functional then Windows. Applications is a chicken and eggs thing. As far as users installing it, you have to have hardware that supports it just like every version of Windows has to have hardware that supports it or else Microsoft wouldn't have PC9x specifications. IMO, if OEMs were allowed to preinstall it without retributions from Micros~1 we would have far better support for devices today.
I don't think that they would drop OS/2 again if they could go back. They had/have very large fortune 500 (redundant) companies that rely on OS/2. Mission critical applications that MUST stay running and run correctly. Can you immagine if ATM machines were running Dos/Windows? I think that bug that crashs Win9x after 49 days would have been found out long ago. IBM just made a deal LAST YEAR worth 1.2 Billion dollars based on mostly OS/2 technology. Could they have made that deal with Windows if IBM gave up OS/2 in 1995 or earlier? I don't think so.
I'm surprised that they didn't find any ISV's that developed for Windows and tried to go to OS/2. The licenses I've heard of forced the ISV's to drop developement for non-Micros~1 operating systems. I supposed no current ISV with Windows products shipping will stand up but what about all those that are out of business? Maybe it is just like how of the OEMs, a former IBM employee is the only one who is willing to speek up?????
Re:Destroying MS could be very easy and inexpensiv
on
IBM & Microsoft Rift
·
· Score: 2
I agree. All contractors would be switching to systems/software compatible with the non-Microsoft systems and so would state and local governments. That one thing would put a huge dent in Micros~1's profit margin and reality bites when you lived a fantacy for so long.
I believe one thing that was imposed on them was that they could NOT announce a product unless it was released 30 days from that announcement. Imagine if just that one thing was imposed on Micros~1 back when they first had monopoly power. Sometime back in mid to late 1980's. Would it helped back in the 1994 consent decree???? Would it help today???? What about OEMs not allowed to modify the startup UI? In the DOS and Win3.x days many OEM came up with much more usable UIs to replace Program Manager and user bought some for that reason. 1995 saw the end of that too. Micros~1 is a monopoly and MUST operate and be regulated under monopoly rules. Is there a way to FIX the damage in such a way that other OS's have a new chance or do we start with Windows as some kind of base platform? Something has to allow progress going forward and allow for innovation by many and not the one. What held IBM back may be able to hold Micros~1 back. IMHO
There are other issues here. If you sell IBM compatible PCs: 1) You can not sell any other operating system without threats and damage from Micros~` 2) You can not add software to that package except under strict scrutany by Micros~1 3) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way and still sell its OS on your PCs
If you write software for Windows: 1) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way. 2) You can not write software for any other operating system and keep up-to-date on Windows. 3) You can not grow your business very large or Micros~1 will see you as a threat. 4) If Micros~1 decides your market is desirable you should be prepared to exit that market.
There will only be 3 places to be in PC technology. One is working FOR Micros~1 on software, selling services fixing Micros~1 products, or selling PCs with Windows on it. This is what I read from how Micros~1 treats its partners, OEMs, and ISVs. Look at this IBM information, look at how Netscape was delt with, look at how Borland lost its employees and thus its technology, look all around and everything says that you either make hardware only, provide service for Micros~1 products, or work for Micros~1. A dim future if you ask me. Unless.......Linux??????
When attempting to travel faster then light one should follow the wisdom of James T. Kirk. Pull the plug on the light source you are attempting to go faster then.;) Same way Kirk passed the Kobayashi Maru test.
It was told here that the ATX power supply looks at pin 14 of the power harness for the control signal and that anything buy pulled low is OFF. It was also told here that the pull up for that pin is located in the power supply and the mobo pulls it low on software or it is physically pulled low with the front switch. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together here though I was a ET for some 6 years before dumping EE for CS degree.
As far as the power supply idling, what you really mean is the mobo/CPU idling. I think the PS will use less power if it is asked to supply less power and most ATX mobo's have APM built in. IIRC. If you want to use that feature, install APM on your OS and enable in your mobo BIOS. I did this with my IWILL DP6NS server at home til I started crunching RC5-64.
Re:Silent cries from distant places
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 1
> The appeal of Windows is learning an interface > once and being able to apply it to any applicaiton.
Don't you mean the appeal of windows as opposed to Windows (as in MS)? There isn't much consistant in the desktops of Win3.x, Win95, and Win98 but those applications that follow CUA will be usable once you figure out how to start them.
I think it is time for the PlayStation and Nintendo to take the ball from Micros~1 and build a idiot proof system. Those who can think alittle can do use Linux. This will happen in less then 2 years IMHO. Linux needs a application installation utility that is desktop aware. That feature with the OpenLinux 2.2 install and Inet and retail application packages will take users by storm. For the most part Linux configurations make more sense to me then what Microsoft puts out and that makes it easier to learn. Learning the MS way you have to use tons of memorization techniques because there is little applied logic can do for you.
Good idea but time is not a luxury. If we get the OpenDoc equivilent in KOM/OpenParts then we will finally be jumping to warp factor 1 while Windows lumbers at sub warp. Current Warp users are at warp factor 2 but the ship is wired together like a Christmas Tree and may not be able to hold that speed for very much longer.:) Data centric computing will get Linux going in the right direction and the work mentioned here(KOM/OpenParts) is the best place to start. The WPS has no equal but KOM/OpenParts might get us there without the ball/chain called IBM. Up until just 3 years ago, IBM gave OS/2 users a taste of the future years before the rest. It s&cks seeing the rest catching up and here is a chance to get on the fast train again. IMHO
Ton of stuff all over the place? Just drag a 'Folder' template over a clear spot and drop it. Now select all you icons on the desktop except the new folder then drag and drop them onto the new folder. Poof, a clean desktop where you can drag and drop the things you want and leave the rest tucked away. I think it was 1994 when a coworker said he couldn't use OS/2 becuause his wife wouldn't know how to start her Windows-based word processor for school. I created a new folder called "Wendy", his wifes name, I created a template for here Windows-based word processor and a folder tempate in the "Wendy" folder. All the other folders on the desktop were dropped into a new desktop folder I called "System". Only 2 folders were on her desktop, one called "Wendy" and one called "System". How hard is that? The problem today is that people don't want choices. They want to be told what to do and how to do it and Micros~1 is there to 'help' them. They haven't made Billions of Dollars selling solution, they did it selling problems. IMHO
This is better then MS Windows if like OpenDoc
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 2
In the OpenDoc (OpenParts?) world you don't get some half-arsed application like you do on Windows. You actually get THE application, its menu and all. The OpenDoc world one could have just a viewer of the data or you could have a editor of the data. If the web browser was a true OpenDoc container then when you clicked on that document link, and you had the editor part, you could edit just like if you clicked on a local document. I'm so glad that OSS is taking this forward because data is what we should be concerned with. Micros~1 has us thinking application, application, application. I want to be able to tear off a template of a text object, drag it to my working folder and open it up to start writting. When I realize that a graphic may help me then I want to embed a graphic using my perferred graphic package right into the document. If a part of the graphic needs text then in goes another text object which uses the same editor as the original document. Not some slim-featured editor built into the graphic app.
This technology can change alot about computing that is bad today. This technology is what will allow me to move from OS/2 to Linux and get the same or better productivity out of it. This is not MS Windows by any means.
I had been hoping that Java would have picked up the OpenDoc ball. Think about it, you get a link to a document that you don't have the viewer to. Your system looks at a well known site and find the viewer ( a Java-based viewer ) and asks you if you want to fetch it to be run as a application or as a applet(secure/safer). Now you are viewing the data. Everybody gets equal access to viewing the data but not to creating or editing it.
We have one of those still in the original boxes. I've been tempted to fire it up at one of our parties and have it playing asteroids. The contrast of that with all the X10 stuff and ethernet we have throughout the house seemed cool. Now I'm worried that I've thrown all our compatible 5.25" software away without thinking of this relic.:(
I like that. Linux WILL do what Micros~1 has tried. Namely grow from the bottom up. Only difference is that Linux shows signs of actually being capable of succeeding. In most industries the growth is the opposite with high-end gear, little by little, feeding technology back down to the low-end. Like Auto Racing technologies find places in our cars and trucks (McPherson Struts). Except for OS/2 and now Linux there hasn't been a OS really capable of using the technology. Dos based Windows all the way up to Windows 98 su*k and NT is cracking and about to 'pitch a rod'. IMO. You're right and I don't think it's a bad thing that the proprietary UNIXs eventually will become Linux followers.
I really don't think Micros~1 "does" anything but Win32. Therefore I doubt if they have Linux developers doing this and figure they have a porting layer of Win32 APIs mapping Win32 to GNU/Linux APIs. It will be slow and buggy because it is Micros~1 and because it isn't Windows. You can bet they are not doing this for $$ so don't count on a very good product. PR is the name of the game.
Microsft dropped the OS/2 ball in the late 1980's and IBM brought it into the 32bit world of the 1990's. Oh, wait, you probably weren't old enough to know that. Some of use don't have to do research because we were there.
>MS in fact made most software you know of. NO. MS made most software bloated. Usually after buying it from some company they first weakened by pre-announcing a competing product that never existed.
Slashdot Mirror
You're running what OS and can't get more
then 20 days of uptime? Since you're talking
Notes/Domino here...NT or OS/2?
>If their stuff doesn't work, then they will try
>other stuff to sell i.e NT boxes and now Linux.
>You might as well be the one selling other
>products your client wants if they don't want
>your stuff. Right?
Wrong. As far as OS/2 is concerned, it outperforms and is more reliable then NT but customers don't seem to want that. They want NT because everybody else is supposed to have it. According to the press just after Windows 95 shipped. When customers insist on an inferior product it is a smart company that ramps up its services for that product. They, IBM are making $$ hand over fist fixing Windows NT problems over and over again. Just look around, Windows is always breaking and at ~$200/hour those who are willing to take pay for a living hell are making some big $$. That is my take on what is going on with IBM pushing NT. To bad businesses are so dumb about selecting it but a working OS/2 or Linux machine gets no attention while Windows has MS fed press and every 10th word out of most employees mouth is Micros~1 when computers are discussed. Go figure.
This is what they do with the HPFS386 installable filesystem and SMB services. It is what allows Warp Server to blow NT out of the water serving files. Parts of it are actually written in assembly code. Do you want to do that with a web server? I think this is where Linux shines. The OS is tight, small, and simple so OSS works because you can have user space code running quite fast. So far all the tests I've seen pitting NT IIS to Linux/Apache were for static pages and there are far better choices on Linux for that type of web server. Anybody seen Apache and IIS tests running dynamic pages?
I'm wondering why nobody is in prison for perjury after all the backtracking that went on in round one. What was up with those videos? Funny how Bill G. says he didn't know anything about the Java case yet he was right in there pulling strings to get Apple to drop Netscape and Java. Can a civil perjury case be filed against them?
> 1) You can not sell any other operating system > without threats and damage from Micros~`
>
> Interesting. Why is it that lots of OEM's do sell other OS's, including Dell and Compaq.
When did they start doing that? Compaq just bought Digital so it has a base large enough to require support. Wasn't Compaq threatened to lose its license to Windows because it installed Netscape? Not a very friendly thing for a friendly Micros~1 to do. Compaq is not very close to Micros~1 any more. Recent history too.
> 2) You can not add software to that package except under strict scrutany by Micros~1
>
> You cannot *REMOVE* software from a windows installation, you can add anything you
> like. Lots of OEM's including Toshiba and IBM have been shipping Netscape for years,
> just not at the expense of removing IE. You also can't alter the boot up sequence.
And they pay dearly for installing those products too. They can't put those products icons on the desktop though can they? Customers have to go find those packages instead of having them right up front.
> 3) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way and still sell its OS on your PCs
>
> Well, since IBM is really the only company that both sells commercial software and sells
> PC's, it's hard to judge based on one case.
HP and Compaq have software divisions but why don't they have anything that competes with Micros~1? Same reason why nobody will stand up againt them in court. Fear. IBM is about the only one willing to stand up and fight and even thought they are making alot of money supporting broken Windows installation/products they are also paying for it. As the current news stories are showing us.
> 1) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way.
> Strange that many companies DO compete with Microsoft, and still stay quite up to date.
> Intuit for instance.
Funny the government already told Micros~1 to stay away from them and you chose them as your one example.
> 2) You can not write software for any other operating system and keep up-to-date on Windows.
>
> Strange that Intuit does this. So does Corel.
> So does IBM (remember, they write more
> software for NT than anyone else besides MS
> right now). So does Perforce, Rational, and
> more companies than I can name.
There goes Intuit again. Do you really think Corel gets the time of day from Micros~1? They are fighting the good fight with what they have but since MS Office has been bundled with Windows, they don't have much market left. Again, IBM pays for dearly for doing this, they are just big enough to be able to afford it.
> 3) You can not grow your business very large or Micros~1 will see you as a threat.
>
> Strange that Microsoft doesn't see companies
> like SAP as a threat. They're one of the top
> selling companies on the market.
This is a desktop product? We are talking aobut Microsoft's leverage of the desktop here. If they are allowed to continue into the server space, SAP will be attacked the same way others have been.
> 4) If Micros~1 decides your market is desirable you should be prepared to exit that market.
>
> Only if you're incompetant and have only
> managed to stay in business if you have no
> competition. Clearly, lots of companies compete
> with Micrsoft and win. Again, Intuit is one.
> Lotus is another. Microsoft doesn't
> automatically dominate in every market they
> enter.
There is Intuit again.... Lotus has IBMs $$ behind it and they are putting up a good fight. Exchange should be no competition for Notes but look at what it has done so far. Boy it is even at something like rev 6 even though it is only a couple of years old. FUD and Micros~1 is attacking it with MS LookOut by preinstalls in Windows.
Kind a poor case you put up there. The history is there, you just have to be more then 20 years old to have actually seen it happen and be aware of it. Some 15 years of it. IIRC
It is about advertizing dollars. When I asked why the 2 latest NOS shootouts didn't include OS/2 Warp Server or e-Business I was told that IBM wasn't marketing the product and it didn't have marketshare. Capability was not even mentioned. Put that with the $$ Micros~1 spends on advertizing and you have Ziff-Davis doing anything Micros~1 wants. That includes drumming up news about other operating systems. Didn't anyone notice last year that OS/2 and Linux press coverage started when the court case started? Will all this end when the court case ends? I say it will but that also depends on the remedies imposed on Micros~1 by the courts.
In 1994, the year Warp v3 shipped IBM was selling 1 million copies of OS/2 per month. They could not break into the preload business and we now know why. The total OS/2 install base was around 15 million worldwide and until March of 1995 IBM was heavily advertising OS/2. Nun ads and the like. One million copies per month at mostly retail is an amazing number. I was actually having people finally start asking me about OS/2 because of all the press and even in spite of the constant harassing Ziff-Davis and others published. Fighting a ghost for 3 years, Chicago, was appearently taking its toll on IBM and after all, Micros~1 kept advertising all the amazing things that this ghost would do real soon now.
OS/2 would have kicked butt had Micros~1 not been allowed to use the press to lie to the public and be allowed to annouce a product that was not going to ship for 3 years. I'll say it again, a Ziff-Davis reporter in Europe told people that IBM was killing OS/2 around 1995 and that lie made it all over the world. The head of a Denver CO hospital was evaluating OS/2 for a complete replacement of DOS/Windows until he heard the lie that IBM was killing OS/2. THIS IS WHAT KEPT WINDOWS ALIVE. Illegal marketing practices by Micros~1 and it PR arm, Ziff-Davis and company. IMHO
read my post to this sub threads parent...
Lack of functionality? What functionality was missing in OS/2 in 1995? Functionality is why I got ahold of the beta of OS/2 v2.0 in 1990(IIRC). Up until some recent (2-3 years) new devices like DVD, OS/2 has been far more functional then Windows. Applications is a chicken and eggs thing. As far as users installing it, you have to have hardware that supports it just like every version of Windows has to have hardware that supports it or else Microsoft wouldn't have PC9x specifications. IMO, if OEMs were allowed to preinstall it without retributions from Micros~1 we would have far better support for devices today.
I don't think that they would drop OS/2 again if they could go back. They had/have very large fortune 500 (redundant) companies that rely on OS/2. Mission critical applications that MUST stay running and run correctly. Can you immagine if ATM machines were running Dos/Windows? I think that bug that crashs Win9x after 49 days would have been found out long ago. IBM just made a deal LAST YEAR worth 1.2 Billion dollars based on mostly OS/2 technology. Could they have made that deal with Windows if IBM gave up OS/2 in 1995 or earlier? I don't think so.
I'm surprised that they didn't find any ISV's that developed for Windows and tried to go to OS/2. The licenses I've heard of forced the ISV's to drop developement for non-Micros~1 operating systems. I supposed no current ISV with Windows products shipping will stand up but what about all those that are out of business? Maybe it is just like how of the OEMs, a former IBM employee is the only one who is willing to speek up?????
I agree. All contractors would be switching to systems/software compatible with the non-Microsoft systems and so would state and local governments. That one thing would put a huge dent in Micros~1's profit margin and reality bites when you lived a fantacy for so long.
I believe one thing that was imposed on them was that they could NOT announce a product unless it was released 30 days from that announcement. Imagine if just that one thing was imposed on Micros~1 back when they first had monopoly power. Sometime back in mid to late 1980's. Would it helped back in the 1994 consent decree???? Would it help today???? What about OEMs not allowed to modify the startup UI? In the DOS and Win3.x days many OEM came up with much more usable UIs to replace Program Manager and user bought some for that reason. 1995 saw the end of that too. Micros~1 is a monopoly and MUST operate and be regulated under monopoly rules. Is there a way to FIX the damage in such a way that other OS's have a new chance or do we start with Windows as some kind of base platform? Something has to allow progress going forward and allow for innovation by many and not the one. What held IBM back may be able to hold Micros~1 back. IMHO
There are other issues here.
If you sell IBM compatible PCs:
1) You can not sell any other operating system without threats and damage from Micros~`
2) You can not add software to that package except under strict scrutany by Micros~1
3) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way and still sell its OS on your PCs
If you write software for Windows:
1) You can not write software that competes with Micros~1 in any way.
2) You can not write software for any other operating system and keep up-to-date on Windows.
3) You can not grow your business very large or Micros~1 will see you as a threat.
4) If Micros~1 decides your market is desirable you should be prepared to exit that market.
There will only be 3 places to be in PC technology. One is working FOR Micros~1 on software, selling services fixing Micros~1 products, or selling PCs with Windows on it. This is what I read from how Micros~1 treats its partners, OEMs, and ISVs. Look at this IBM information, look at how Netscape was delt with, look at how Borland lost its employees and thus its technology, look all around and everything says that you either make hardware only, provide service for Micros~1 products, or work for Micros~1.
A dim future if you ask me. Unless.......Linux??????
When attempting to travel faster then light one should follow the wisdom of James T. Kirk. Pull the plug on the light source you are attempting to go faster then. ;) Same way Kirk passed the Kobayashi Maru test.
r %20trek%20II%20-%20the%20wrath%20of%20khan /cheat.wav
:)
http://quantumrealms.com/soundsrealm/sounds/sta
Sorry but this is WAY over my head and I probably shouldn't even have posted.
It was told here that the ATX power supply looks at pin 14 of the power harness for the control signal and that anything buy pulled low is OFF. It was also told here that the pull up for that pin is located in the power supply and the mobo pulls it low on software or it is physically pulled low with the front switch. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together here though I was a ET for some 6 years before dumping EE for CS degree.
As far as the power supply idling, what you really mean is the mobo/CPU idling. I think the PS will use less power if it is asked to supply less power and most ATX mobo's have APM built in. IIRC. If you want to use that feature, install APM on your OS and enable in your mobo BIOS. I did this with my IWILL DP6NS server at home til I started crunching RC5-64.
> The appeal of Windows is learning an interface
> once and being able to apply it to any applicaiton.
Don't you mean the appeal of windows as opposed to Windows (as in MS)? There isn't much consistant in the desktops of Win3.x, Win95, and Win98 but those applications that follow CUA will be usable once you figure out how to start them.
I think it is time for the PlayStation and Nintendo to take the ball from Micros~1 and build a idiot proof system. Those who can think alittle can do use Linux. This will happen in less then 2 years IMHO. Linux needs a application installation utility that is desktop aware. That feature with the OpenLinux 2.2 install and Inet and retail application packages will take users by storm.
For the most part Linux configurations make more sense to me then what Microsoft puts out and that makes it easier to learn. Learning the MS way you have to use tons of memorization techniques because there is little applied logic can do for you.
Good idea but time is not a luxury. If we get the OpenDoc equivilent in KOM/OpenParts then we will finally be jumping to warp factor 1 while Windows lumbers at sub warp. Current Warp users are at warp factor 2 but the ship is wired together like a Christmas Tree and may not be able to hold that speed for very much longer.:) Data centric computing will get Linux going in the right direction and the work mentioned here(KOM/OpenParts) is the best place to start. The WPS has no equal but KOM/OpenParts might get us there without the ball/chain called IBM. Up until just 3 years ago, IBM gave OS/2 users a taste of the future years before the rest. It s&cks seeing the rest catching up and here is a chance to get on the fast train again.
IMHO
Ton of stuff all over the place? Just drag a 'Folder' template over a clear spot and drop it. Now select all you icons on the desktop except the new folder then drag and drop them onto the new folder. Poof, a clean desktop where you can drag and drop the things you want and leave the rest tucked away.
I think it was 1994 when a coworker said he couldn't use OS/2 becuause his wife wouldn't know how to start her Windows-based word processor for school. I created a new folder called "Wendy", his wifes name, I created a template for here Windows-based word processor and a folder tempate in the "Wendy" folder. All the other folders on the desktop were dropped into a new desktop folder I called "System". Only 2 folders were on her desktop, one called "Wendy" and one called "System". How hard is that?
The problem today is that people don't want choices. They want to be told what to do and how to do it and Micros~1 is there to 'help' them. They haven't made Billions of Dollars selling solution, they did it selling problems. IMHO
In the OpenDoc (OpenParts?) world you don't get some half-arsed application like you do on Windows. You actually get THE application, its menu and all. The OpenDoc world one could have just a viewer of the data or you could have a editor of the data. If the web browser was a true OpenDoc container then when you clicked on that document link, and you had the editor part, you could edit just like if you clicked on a local document.
I'm so glad that OSS is taking this forward because data is what we should be concerned with. Micros~1 has us thinking application, application, application. I want to be able to tear off a template of a text object, drag it to my working folder and open it up to start writting. When I realize that a graphic may help me then I want to embed a graphic using my perferred graphic package right into the document. If a part of the graphic needs text then in goes another text object which uses the same editor as the original document. Not some slim-featured editor built into the graphic app.
This technology can change alot about computing that is bad today. This technology is what will allow me to move from OS/2 to Linux and get the same or better productivity out of it. This is not MS Windows by any means.
I had been hoping that Java would have picked up the OpenDoc ball. Think about it, you get a link to a document that you don't have the viewer to. Your system looks at a well known site and find the viewer ( a Java-based viewer ) and asks you if you want to fetch it to be run as a application or as a applet(secure/safer). Now you are viewing the data. Everybody gets equal access to viewing the data but not to creating or editing it.
I'm going to get this stuff.
We have one of those still in the original boxes. :(
I've been tempted to fire it up at one of our parties and have it playing asteroids. The contrast of that with all the X10 stuff and ethernet we have throughout the house seemed cool.
Now I'm worried that I've thrown all our compatible 5.25" software away without thinking of this relic.
I like that. Linux WILL do what Micros~1 has tried. Namely grow from the bottom up. Only difference is that Linux shows signs of actually being capable of succeeding.
In most industries the growth is the opposite with high-end gear, little by little, feeding technology back down to the low-end. Like Auto Racing technologies find places in our cars and trucks (McPherson Struts). Except for OS/2 and now Linux there hasn't been a OS really capable of using the technology. Dos based Windows all the way up to Windows 98 su*k and NT is cracking and about to 'pitch a rod'. IMO.
You're right and I don't think it's a bad thing that the proprietary UNIXs eventually will become Linux followers.
Sorry but your post read like this book is just what MindCraft DIDN'T want to find.
I really don't think Micros~1 "does" anything but Win32. Therefore I doubt if they have Linux developers doing this and figure they have a porting layer of Win32 APIs mapping Win32 to GNU/Linux APIs. It will be slow and buggy because it is Micros~1 and because it isn't Windows. You can bet they are not doing this for $$ so don't count on a very good product. PR is the name of the game.
They ported the whole bloody Windoz feel over. Damn it sticks our like a sore thumb. I keep forgetting that the Micros~1 way is the ONLY way.
Microsft dropped the OS/2 ball in the late 1980's and IBM brought it into the 32bit world of the 1990's. Oh, wait, you probably weren't old enough to know that. Some of use don't have to do research because we were there.
>MS in fact made most software you know of.
NO. MS made most software bloated. Usually after buying it from some company they first weakened by pre-announcing a competing product that never existed.