Posted on 10/24/2009 3:43:52 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
That statement means precisely nothing, which was my point.
Tech oriented sites like slashdot were filled with glowing reviews of Microsoft Vista. It's also filled with people who like the Microsoft Windows XP GUI, which only made me want to drive an ice pick through my forehead when I used it.
A majority of the votes counted in the last election had Barack Hussein Obama listed as the choice for president. You fail to make any concrete point why your "8 million beta testers" are any different than a hundred billion flies, or tens of millions of US voters.
Sorry. I have to call you on this one. Olvwm did it mostly right the first time a decade and a half ago. KDE and GNOME are passable and I wouldn't actually consider them to be "sucking". Any virtual desktop capability is better than none.
Spaces does get it done better, but it certainly didn't suck before and olvwm did it quite well.
I never found one I liked until Spaces. They were toys I'd play with for a while and then forget. Spaces is the first one I actually use.
Of course it does. The proof of the pudding, is in the eating.
You don't even come close to having a point.
“Tech oriented sites like slashdot were filled with glowing reviews of Microsoft Vista. “
Funny. All I saw at Slashdot were attacks on Vista. In fact, there were more posts attacking Vista at Slashdot than on any other site.
“A majority of the votes counted in the last election had Barack Hussein Obama listed as the choice for president. “
Because he was a better candidate than Juan McInsane was. If you just came in from Mars in September 2008 and stayed to election time in November 2008, you'd vote for 0bama. McCain run the most stupid, inept campaign I have ever seen, and spent more time praising 0bama, than attacking him.
He also spent more time attacking conservatives than he spent attacking 0bama. McCain deserved to lose and he lost.
Your analogy doesn't work.
“You fail to make any concrete point why your “8 million beta testers” are any different than a hundred billion flies, or tens of millions of US voters”
Are you for real?
What are you? You 5 years old or merely retarded?
Tell me this, when did flies become equivalent to humans?
8 million ordinary, non-techie HUMANS (not flies), representing a cross-section of computer users on the planet, using a piece of software (Win 7) for a year, loving it, and thinking it's excellent, equals the overwhelming majority of those who buy Windows 7, having the same great experience. Get it?
The article doesn't state "from the get go." It was an option, but later, only after Kildall threatened suit. He might have sued, but the status of copyright in software in order to be able to pursue such a suit was a gray area, and he'd be going up against IBM's famous lawyers. So a threat and then inclusion of the software at no cost to IBM was as far as it went. IBM was going to dump the idea of CP/M altogether, since it could be just as easy to port something to MS-DOS as it would be to port it from Z-80 CP/M to CP/M-86.
Check this out.
Digital Research's CP/M-86, which was officially an option although you couldn't buy it until later.This guy has an official first-edition IBM copy of CP/M-86, dated 1982. IBM PC release, 1981.
He thought his OS was superior so it should cost more. IBM merely sold CP/M at the price that Kildall wanted them to sell it at.
IBM originally wanted to go with CP/M, but decided MS-DOS could be cheaper. They were right. Now back to the subject, the Microsoft product didn't win on quality, although relative to its competition DOS wasn't all that bad in some ways. It won on being cheap and what IBM was pushing.
Notice the word "often" not "always." Back to the point, 64-bit was not touted as a new innovation, just new to OS X. Microsoft touted its 64-bit products, too, and for good reason -- Windows was finally 64-bit.
Apple did do its 64-bit differently from others. Microsoft provided massive headaches for its users going 64-bit on Intel, but they did it all at once. Good from a technical standpoint, but bad from a migration standpoint.
Apple started by changing only the performance-sensitive portions of the OS that would benefit from 64-bit, then over later versions crept that into the rest of the OS. This transition made it easier on the users without penalizing them on anything but a bit of disk space (an executable would contain both 32- and 64-bit versions, and the proper one would automatically run depending on the hardware and software environment).
Who did it better, I can't say. I like the purist approach for Microsoft, except for the dumb hacks it required ("Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" -- what the hell?). Apple's wasn't as purist, resulting in no true 64-bit for years, but the transition went practically unnoticed by users.
yet here was Steve Jobs, cheerfully hollering :”Redmond, start your photocopiers” when he finally got 64 bit into OSX Leopard,
"Redmond, start your photocopiers" was for the release of Tiger, not Leopard, taunting Microsoft about possible features in the yet-to-be-released Vista. You really need to learn your computer history.
Bottom line: CP/M was an option on IBM PC's, so your argument that that MS Dos was used instead of CP/M, and that as the reason why Microsoft won, is not valid. BOTH operating systems were available on IBM's PC, if not at the very start, within weeks of each other. And..CP/M was by far the better established OS. If anything CP/M had the advantage.
“IBM originally wanted to go with CP/M, but decided MS-DOS could be cheaper”
Don't try and re-write history will ya?
IBM went to Kildall, AFTER Bill Gates had sent IBM to Kildall. A lot of people forget that it was Bill Gates that sent IBM to Kildall in the first place, after IBM had first of all come to Gates for both an OS and Microsoft's Basic. As it turns out, Gates did not have an OS, so he sent the IBM people to Kildall. It's not Gates’s fault that Kildall could not reach an agreement with IBM, ending up with IBM coming back to Gates again.
Kildall had the deal presented to him on a silver platter by IBM, but he held the penny too lose to his eye to see the dollar behind it. Kildall was a great programmer but a bad businessman. Gates immediately recognized the strategic importance of teaming up with IBM. Kildall didn't.
Nothing much wrong with that. A lot of geeks are crap businessman.
Jobs has been making references to Microsoft “copying” Mac OS for decades, long before the launch of Tiger.
Plus like I already linked to in my previous posts, there are lots of features appeared in Vista, before they appeared in OSX Leopard. All operating systems borrow from each other. That has been the case since computers were invented, but try telling that to the Applebots. As far as they are concerned, Apple invented everything.
The analogy works perfectly. If you came out of a cave without any previous access to technology, you might be tempted to believe that Microsoft Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I'm guessing you're not a Microsoft employee, so perhaps you might want to take a look at this.
What are you? You 5 years old or merely retarded?
A cogent argument. I believe! I believe! I believe! My soul has been saved! I believe! I'm running outside now to burn all my Turbolinux/Fedora/Mac OS X CDs and dance naked in the streets. Oh and pass the koolaid brother FReeper.
Which ones were those? Thurott's list wasn't a list of features that OS X copied from Vista as I showed.
All operating systems borrow from each other.
Duh, but some do more innovation than others. Microsoft took gadgets from OS X, which took them from Konfabulator. Strangely, you haven't mentioned the one big thing OS X took from Windows, although with some improvement: the task bar. That would probably explain why many of the usability problems of OS X are related to the Dock.
As far as they are concerned, Apple invented everything.
The only place I've seen that motif is in the eyes of Apple haters projected onto Apple fans, not in the actual Apple fans themselves.
Your analogy works like 0bama’s porkulus bill.
” If you came out of a cave without any previous access to technology, you might be tempted to believe that Microsoft Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
The thing wrong with that analogy is 8 million people have already been using Win 7 for a year, and from personal experience, KNOW it's a great operating system. Practically every computer user now, either knows someone who has already been using Windows 7 in the past year, or knows someone who know someone who has.
The positive word of mouth and positive buzz on Win 7, from people who have actually already used it, has been incredible.
That is what is selling Windows 7 at a record pace, and that is why Windows is going to continue to crush your pathetic Linux in market share, for the foreseeable future.
“I believe! I believe! I believe! My soul has been saved! “
Just as i thought.
A guy with the mental age of a 5 year old, AND a retard to boot. Poor guy.
It was.
You didn't show nothing.
All you did was produce a pretty pathetic list of self serving poor excuses, in a losing rearguard action. It was amusing though.
“Duh, but some do more innovation than others”
Yeah
Apple has stolen from other operating systems, and other inventors far more than anyone else. Only thing is, Jobs, Apple and the Apple crazies have a bigger mouth than anyone else, and can lie and make excuses more than anyone else after they have stolen from others.
“
Funny.
I see that on tech site all the time, from Apple terrorists.
MSDOS had the leg up as the initial OS, and at a lower cost. After that, CP/M never took off on the platform. That is the reason MSDOS won, not quality.
IBM went to Kildall, AFTER Bill Gates had sent IBM to Kildall.
Your ability to tell to me what I already know is amazing. Irrelevant, but amazing.
Kildall was a great programmer but a bad businessman. Gates immediately recognized the strategic importance of teaming up with IBM.
Gates was a good programmer once, too. I used the OS he developed on the TRS-80 Model 100 (the last thing he actually developed himself at Microsoft) with the MS BASIC. The file system he designed where you never actually have to save anything was wonderful. It was the first really good portable computer, with no small credit to him.
But after he got really successful after a few years with IBM/DOS he saw the dollar signs and was very willing to make massive compromises to quality in order to make more money.
Funny.
I see that on tech sites all the time, from Apple robots and terrorists
MS DOS didn't have much of a leg up.
CP/M was offered on the IBM PC same as MS DOS was.
The decision to price of CP/M higher was taken by Gary Kildall. Meanwhile, Gates decided to make only a little per copy of PC sold, and make his money by volume in case the IBM PC sold well.
Remember, no one even expected the IBM PC to sell even 10 million lifetime, at the time, so Gates was taking a risk by pricing low. Kildall wanted to get as much as he could on each PC sold. Blame him, not Gates.
“Your ability to tell to me what I already know is amazing. Irrelevant, but amazing.”
This was your post that I replied to with that post:
“IBM originally wanted to go with CP/M, but decided MS-DOS could be cheaper”
The point being, IBM did not want to go with MS DOS to start off with. There was no such product as MS-DOS in existence at the time. IBM wanted to go with CP/M . Period.
All Kildall had to do was sign IBM NDA, then come to an agremnet with them. Price was not even an issue in the original discussions with Kildall. He just wouldn't agree to IBM's terms. If Kildall had just signed with IBM, that would have been it.
You also fail to mention that, even after IBM eventually came to an agreement with Kildall, Tim Paterson and Gates, managed to get the 16 bit Dos that IBM wanted out the door, before Kildall did.
Later, after DOS was the standard offering.
The point being, IBM did not want to go with MS DOS to start off with.
And after Kildall pissed them off they didn't want CP/M at all. Threat of suit did it.
Still none of this has to do with the fact that DOS didn't become dominant through technical merits, but through pricing and the power of IBM behind it.
Nobody is more critical of Apple than Apple lovers. The seam lines in the Cube, for example. We just have higher expectations.
Look at Calendar for example. That was just a defense that Vista didn't copy it from OS X, not a claim that OS X copied from Vista. I think you only read the title of the article.
Apple has stolen from other operating systems, and other inventors far more than anyone else.
I'd love to see support for that rather than vague claims. I'm not holding my breath though.
You seriously need to get educated and do you research before you come to me. You couldn't even get the "Start your copiers" statement right.
Why don't you support that with dates?
I read Bill Gate's book “The Road Ahead”, about 11 years ago. He stated clearly that IBM DID offer CP/M as an option with IBM PC’s from the get go.
MS DOS was not even close to being a standard then. If anything,, the standard was CP/M.
MS DOS was the underdog here. Gary Kildall priced his “superior” OS high. Consumers CHOSE MS DOS, because they didn't like high prices. You should know something about that. It's the reason Windows PC’s dominate with over 90% market share world wide, while Apple macs languish at under 4%, despite Apple being in the personal computer business for over 30 years.
Nobody is more rabidly fanatical in their defence of an operating system, or more vicious in their attacks on other operating systems than the Applebots. They make Al Quaeda fanatics look like rank amateurs. At least the Al Quaeda’s are fighting for a religion, and way of life. What are the fanatical Applebots rabidly vicious and nasty about? An operating system. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.