Guest Shingen Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 Sorry but the idea is a waay too socialistic for my tastes! (IE: communist -- Yeah I know Menchise, but socialism IS communism--they just use different terms..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 quote: Sorry but the idea is a waay too socialistic for my tastes! (IE: communist -- Yeah I know Menchise, but socialism IS communism--they just use different terms..) Can I please enter a debate WITHOUT someone mentioning Socialism?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shingen Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 quote:Gates was at the right place at the right time. I have no reason to admire his abilities.The same could be said for Andrew Carnegie, JD Rockefeller, and a host of other millionaires. Why negate thier business acumen jsut because they were at the right place at the right time? Why does wealth and it's accumulation always have to be a crime? quote:Can I please enter a debate WITHOUT someone mentioning Socialism?!heheheh that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 quote: The same could be said for Andrew Carnegie, JD Rockefeller, and a host of other millionaires. Why negate thier business acumen jsut because they were at the right place at the right time? Why does wealth and it's accumulation always have to be a crime? Shingen, read my post again and you may notice a couple of paragraphs stating that Gates had nothing to do with the success of DOS and that Windows was a ripoff of MacOS. You call that business acumen?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shingen Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 Whether or not Bill Gates was responsible for the creation of DOS or the Windows operating system is irrelevent. That fact that Bill Gates and his associated turned Microsoft into a monoploy company, and became one of the wealthiest men alive has alot to say about his business acumen. Creating DOS and/or Windows OS has nothing to do with business acumen, but programming skill/knowledge. Sorry, but your blatant disregard for Bill Gates and Microsoft sounds like sour grapes to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 A quote from my post. quote: Microsoft bought the rights from Patterson and demonstrated DOS to IBM, which subsequently licensed the system for the IBM-PC (which is known as the 'PC' today). Gates had nothing to do with this deal; it was all the work of Paul Allen. Read that last sentence again. It was Paul Allen's business acumen that put Microsoft on the map.[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: My turn. Microsoft bought the rights from Patterson and demonstrated DOS to IBM, which subsequently licensed the system for the IBM-PC (which is known as the 'PC' today). Gates had nothing to do with this deal; it was all the work of Paul Allen.Windows was not an original MS thing either. Windows 1.0 had an interface that looked so much like the Macintosh OS that Apple sued Microsoft for stealing the idea (even the buttons were identical!). The interface was changed by the time Windows 3.0 came out.Gates was at the right place at the right time. I have no reason to admire his abilities.One of the big reasons why MS is so big today, is because:Patterson was too short sighted (or just plain dumb) to take advantage of the situation himself.And I hate to break it to you, but when Apple was developing their OS the company they turned to to create their GUI was... (ta daaa!) Microsoft. They could have developed the software in house, but they didn't. Microsoft helped to develop the 'look and feel' of the Mac OS and in their contract made sure that they had rights to use what they wanted for their own software. THAT IS WHY APPLE LOST THEIR CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT. And that is why Steve Jobs let the whole thing go and started to work WITH Microsoft the moment he got back into the driver seat. Steve has said many times, the fight with Microsoft is over, and it is.And sure, Gates has been at the right place, at the right time, but also, his competators have been MONUMENTALLY STUPID.Apple could have released a competing OS for the PC very early on. They chose not to. Apple could have cornered the business market by focusing on Bus apps, and hard selling to the business world, they did not. Apple was the birth place of Computer gaming. Apple could have been THE gaming platform. It is not.IBM could have used a Unix or even Linux base for OS2. They did not. As a matter of fact, who did they turn to to create a competing OS for Windows? Microsoft. And MS made sure that in it's contract it could keep what it liked about OS2 and use it in its windows products.Netscape is not that stable. (I'm using it as we speak, and the only reason why I'm not using EI is plain old fashioned stuborness) Netscape 6 has taken forever and will only truly be in a stable state by the Fall, or at least that's what I've been told. They have a lot of work to do, and IE is already out, and works okay for most people. There has been no big push for Netscape 6 because it was just bought by (Ta daaaa) AOL who are either going to integrate what they like into their own browser-like interface and kill the rest, or they're going to just release it without any fanfare and watch it die. In my opinion, this would be stupid, but hey, I don't own AOL.There are countless other bad moves by many other companies, (Corel, Sun... etc.) But one thing few companies have mastered is Microsoft's ability to learn from its mistakes and make a better product. I have tons of complaints about Bill, but one thing I will give him, every time, is he runs his company like they could go out of business in six months. This is hunger. It creates a mentality of competativness that helps to put out products that get better and better with every release, until their competition, who have been sitting on their ass, has been out innovated.Now after that little rant, you'd probably think I'm some crazed fanboy of M$. I'm NOT. I'm ticked off that so many companies are just making these bone headed moves that play into MS's favour. The whole lawsuit being one of them.Stop whining, and complaining, get back out on the playing field and innovate for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 PKZIP:You make an interesting point that I hadn't really considered before. Hmmmm...Many of today's utilities started out as a need or desire filled by an entrepreneur years ago, like Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. At some point in their product's lifecycle, it became a crucial part of society such that its supply and access had to be guaranteed by the government.Shingen:The argument is really this: What would happen to society if the Microsoft OS were to suddenly and massively fail or no longer be accessible? What would happen to society if some people were denied access to Microsoft Windows? What would happen to society if Microsoft were to start charging everyone $50/month like cable companies do, or $150/month like some power companies do? How much do ISP's charge? Telephone? Sewage/garbage? Newspaper?If you had to put a monetary value on your connection to the rest of the world via your computer (and the software that makes it happen), what would it be? What would be the impact to you if you lost the Microsoft OS for a few hours or days? Just how pervasive is the deployment of the Microsoft OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 1, 2001 Report Share Posted July 1, 2001 Microsoft is already charging $35 for tech support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shingen Posted July 1, 2001 Report Share Posted July 1, 2001 quote:Microsoft is already charging $35 for tech support. hehehe Microsoft tech support... now that's an oxymoron... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted July 1, 2001 Report Share Posted July 1, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Considering that Patterson had only written QDOS as a temporary system, $50 000 was a lot of money, especially in 1981. I wonder what he's doing now.In my hyperbolic rant mode, I took a cheap shot at the one guy I shouldn't have. You're right, Patterson should have at least been informed that QDOS was eventually going to IBM. He better be doing well, it would be a shame if he wasn't.No, I redirect my vitrol for a certain Gary Kildall, programer at Digital Research. When IBM approached Bill about using Microsoft Basic for their ROM chip, they asked him who would be a good person to provide the operating system. Bill told them to call up his pal Gary who was working on what some people at the time considered to be the most advanced operating system; CP/M.Well, the IBM boys showed up at Gary's door and told him they wanted to talk to him about some software he was writing, but they wanted him to sign and NDA. Gary freaked out, didn't want to sign anything, and basically told them to stick it where the sun refuses to shine.It was that moment that changed computing forever. IBM went back to Bill, Bill went to Patterson, yadda yadda.If I was Gary's friend at the time, I would have said, loud and clear "What the HELL ARE YOU DOING?!" Are you nuts?!!! Granted, nobody at the time saw IBM as a contender, but still, it was an opportunity of a life time, and yes, I am arrogant enough to say he BLEW IT. (Of course I've never made a bad choice in my life. Ever. Well... except for the last girlfriend. But that was it. Oh, and there was that little incident in Scotland with a married woman, but we're not talking about me now are we ) quote: Why develop an OS for a computer that you're competing against? Why not?! This is my big problem with Apple and with their approach. The battle for the home computer was fought with software, not hardware. It's the killer app, not the processor, that determines the success or failure of a computer. Apple started off with the biggest market share. By the time the IBM PC showed up, Apple was king of the hill, there was very little competition. IBM had a couple of flops, the IBM 5100 and the Datamaster, two big hunks of computer paperweight. They even briefly considered purchasing Atari and using their line of computer. That's how desperate they were. Apple has been very lucky that they have been able to survive with the graphics and educational market, but at one point they had it all, and they could have had more. quote: Actually, university mainframes were the birth place of computer gaming. Yes, sure, you got me there. But all of the legends in the industry, all of the greats, from Carmack to Roberta Williams, to Lord British himself Richard Garriott started on the Mac.This one I don't understand, and even back in the day (When you were just a pup) I could see Mac turning away from gamers, and I didn't get it. I suppose everything turns out the way it should, but gaming is definately a very important aspect of the computer industry. It spurs on innovation, and most importantly, it sells computers. And Apple still, to this very day gives game developers the cold shoulder. In my opinion, this is a huge, ongoing mistake. I have no loyalty to the PC, if Mac comes out with a better platform for programing and playing games, I'm there. They haven't and I'm not.I know it's seems real easy to sit here and spew out opinion after - back seat driver - opinion, but I think Microsofts competition should look seriously at the mistakes of the past and LEARN.If I owned Corel, and I wanted to make Linux THE next operating system, there are more things you have to do than just give it a snappy user interface.You have to get developers on board, you have to provide the public with software with the next big Killer Ap, you have to make sure it's compatable with the latest multimedia devices, and the ones about to be released in the near future. You have to work with chip manufacturers and Board manufacturers to optomize your platform. You have to make sure businesses and home users feel confident that they can transfer any and all data they already have created over to your platform without ANY RISK of loss. You have to (And this is where I have my biggest gripe with M$) force hardware manufacturers and computer dealers to offer a CHOICE OF OPERATING SYSTEM WHEN THEY PURCHASE THEIR COMPUTER. Right now Windows is the only game in town and MS is doing everything in its power to keep it that way. And no one is challenging them with a clear alternative.I don't hate Microsoft. I don't love Microsoft. I use their products when I have to. I don't when I don't. I don't want to see Microsoft go out of business. I want to see their power kept in check. That's all. I don't think the best way to keep them in check is to dismantle it. The best way is to provide competition, provide innovation. Look at the failures of the past, learn and succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shingen Posted July 1, 2001 Report Share Posted July 1, 2001 I remember waaay back in the 80s earliy 90s when GeoWorks was out. That was a pretty good OS (if a little buggy), but it was ALOT better then the 3.1 version of Windows.Whatever happend to the OS and why didn't they stick around? They had alot better GUI, better drawing program and better all around file management the windows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted July 2, 2001 Report Share Posted July 2, 2001 Geoworks had a Dos based GUI similar to Windows. The OS had limited commercial software, and no compatability with popular Microsoft programs. It died.Geoworks now focuses on wireless application platforms, and mobile servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commander Hamblin Posted July 2, 2001 Report Share Posted July 2, 2001 I do not like Microsoft, and here's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Wow! That Mike Wong guy knows what he's talking about.Here is a working link to the page Hamblin referred to: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Microsoft.shtml[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commander Hamblin Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Thanks Menchise. Looks like I put in the "http" twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Speak of the Devil...XP Activation Nightmare!!! If I ran Corel, I would put a HUGE amount of cash into an ad campaign that said, "Look, you can use our office suite, any files you created with MS Office are completely compatible, and NO ACTIVATION!!! No subscription payments, no nothing."But I'm not the head of Corel. The head of Corel probably right now has his head in the sand. I feel like sending an e-mail. I think I just might.[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Kush ][ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Kush ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Shit!!! We just bought Office XP! It's in the mail now!This Product Activation thing is the worst feature that Microsoft has ever conceived! The 44 unit re-activation key in case of hardware change or upgrade (or bug that makes it think such a thing) is going way too far!!! [entering pissed off and ranting mode]I'm not touching Office XP or Windows XP with a ten foot pole! Gates and co. are growing horns as we speak! Upgrading is hard enough without this pathetic excuse for a feature! MS can get screwed as long as this "innovation" continues! [calming down]Hmm...I wonder where the official Debian web site is. [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure sooner or later there's going to be a hack that will disable it.In the mean time, take a serious look at other office software. Send a letter to MS telling them what you think (they actually do mean something). Remember, part of the reason why MS has a monopoly is because WE GAVE IT TO THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gaidal Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 Yes, there already is a crack for Windows XP, not sure about Office, but I have faith in the cracking community. I'm probably going to buy Windows XP and crack it, just out of principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kush Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 And yet another reason to hate Micro$oft... http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4...hkpt=hud0004200[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Kush ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 With all of the negative press going around about Windows XP, consumers are probably going to encounter a whole new series of dirty tricks from Microsoft after the release of the OS.[entering conspiracy theory mode] If sales of Windows XP go down as a result of the negative publicity, I will not be surprised if Microsoft starts releasing a series of updates and service packs across the board for every existing MS product in widespread use, featuring so-called "enhancements". Hidden among these "enhancements" will reside a piece of code that causes the software to require Windows XP to work properly. Microsoft will use its propaganda machine (known as the "Freedom to Innovate Network") to claim that this was done to make the products, you guessed it, more innovative.[exiting conspiracy theory mode]Does anyone trust Microsoft anymore?[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrrian Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 I often wonder whether we acutally need to upgrade to the next version of office. I run with office 95 on my w2k system. I have yet to use even the power of the package so I can see no real reason to update to a later version. I wonder if Office XP is really worth it? Jez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 quote: I often wonder whether we acutally need to upgrade to the next version of office. I run with office 95 on my w2k system. I have yet to use even the power of the package so I can see no real reason to update to a later version. Hehe. This is one of the issues mentioned by Mike Wong in one of his rants.Apparently, Office 95 can't read Word documents that were created with Office 97, Office 97 can't read Word documents that were created with Office 2000 and so on. They might be able to open the files, but the contents aren't displayed correctly. This is because Microsoft keeps changing the Word format. Why? To maintain its stranglehold on the market.One of the biggest complaints that people make about non-MS word processing software such as Wordperfect is that it can't read Word documents while Microsoft Word can read Wordperfect documents. This is because Word document files are written in a proprietary format which is a closely guarded secret at Microsoft.Microsoft keeps changing the format for two reasons:1. It forces consumers to buy yet another version of Office if they expect to continue reading Word documents, which are used by just about everyone else these days.2. It prevents Microsoft's competitors from reverse engineering the format.Since you are using Office 95, I suspect that you have been in one or both of the following situations at least once:1. You download a Word document from the Internet. You double click on the .doc file from Windows Explorer or, depending on your preference, use the Open dialog box in Word itself. Word attempts to open the file, fails, and returns an error message stating that the file cannot be opened because it's either damaged or corrupt.2. You download a Word document from the Internet. You double click on the .doc file from Windows Explorer or, depending on your preference, use the Open dialog box in Word itself. Word opens the file, and the document is littered with empty box characters where there should be letters and punctuation marks.This used to happen when I had Office 95. It stopped happening after I installed Office 2000. The problem was not caused by a bug or an error in the file. The problem was that the document was written in a more recent version of Word.[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now