On 05/14/2011 08:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
have to pay for Windows.

Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!

The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
their ass, over, and over and over.

Jack

There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to
the fact
that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
other
systems could be grafted.

If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
like Google.

But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a
clue
how to compete in the consumer space.

Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
*good*
for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
products ...



Windows is similar to Obama Care - if you don't sign up, you get fined.

On May 15, 5:10*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/15/2011 1:24 PM, Robatoy wrote:





On May 15, 11:00 am, *wrote:
"Jack *wrote in message
I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
these past illegal marketing practices. *I'm grumbling because most of the
software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
OS.

It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operating
system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer worlde
have been ported over to Apple.

And, of course the reverse where Apple had certain professional
publishing programs first. (Adobe..yes many Adobe products were ported
to Windoze from Mac.) Microsoft Word was available for the Mac 4 years
before the Windoze version. Excel was available for Mac 3 years before
the Windoze version.
One reason for the publishing industry's use was the Laserwriter
printers and scanner software available for small desktop publishers.
Photoshop was available on the Mac 4 years prior to the very bad
Windoze version.

I just love the advertisements on TV which has some paid shill say:
"Widows 7 was MY idea."
To which Steve Jobs replied once by saying: "actually it was MY idea,
except we called it Mac OS 9. TEN years before Win7. (Of course we
went to a UNIX based OS with OSX in 2000.... and I have yet to crash
any of my family's Macs since OS X) (I do use some PC software for my
CNC's G-coding and that seems to be reasonably stable as long as I
don't try anything 'out-side the envelope'.

So Macs have a unique place as it caters to the dumber computer
operators on one end of the spectrum, due to its ease of operation,
and it caters to the ultra creative/bright operators on the very
demanding end of the spectrum, due to its immense scope and power....
and everybody in between.

I regularly hear about professionals such as
graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems out
there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, not
what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or too
cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the same
pack that you've been whining about.

The problem with this theory is MacOS is more closed off than Windows ever
was. *You cannot run it on anything but Apple hardware. *And this, from a
system that was born in *open source* *- FreeBSD.

You say that as if that is a bad thing. It forces quality control.

Jack Stein wrote:

On 5/15/2011 2:22 AM, Rich wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
you want, as long as it's black.

I don't know what the big deal is.

The big deal is for the past 23 years or so, most of the world has been
running some lame version of the worlds worst operating system on their
home PC.

I've been running linux since 2001 and haven't looked back.

I guess it doesn't bother you that 99% of the software available doesn't
run on linux, or that only a computer geek can possible know where to
get it, how to install it, or how to use it.

Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
think FireFox came from? Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...


I have no worries about getting a virus and haven't since 2001.

I've had one virus with DOS/WINDOWS in about 25 years. I ran a BBS
where the whole world had access to my computer 24/7, including
uploading and downloading files directly from my home pc. One virus,
and that was in the past year. All other virus appearing problems were
NOT viruses, but poor OS design.

There has been times when I got frustrated with software
developers not porting to linux but I lived with it. Most everything is
covered today. I am ****ed that google doesn't build a Sketchup for linux
but I just use my wives Apple. Haven't run windblows in over 10 years and
haven't seen a blue screen for the same amount of time.

Yes, I understand fully. Some people, like you, are willing to swim
upstream to avoid the worlds worst OS. I did it myself until MS and IBM
made the current too much work to swim against. Linux is a nightmare
compared to what OS/2 offered the user. OS/2 appeared like windows and
dos, but, it worked. It ran all the software of DOS/WIN with none of the
problems of DOS/WIN, plus it had a robust, solid OS running everything,
so developers could write awesome software. It only died because IBM
and MS killed it, just when it was attaining critical mass.

UNIX was a super OS and had Bell labs/AT&T developed it for the consumer
market it would have been a good competitor with OS/2. They didn't, and
LINUX, being shareware, has too many problems for the non-geek user to
deal with. There was a time I thought LINUX might do something
worthwhile against MS, but I'm afraid if that ever happens, I won't be
around to enjoy it.

OH, google sketchup is one of my favorite apps.... Guarantee it would
have run under OS/2 as a WIN Program, and twice as good if it were
developed as an OS/2 program.


--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"

Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb

On 5/15/2011 9:29 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 05/14/2011 08:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
have to pay for Windows.

Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!

The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
their ass, over, and over and over.

Jack

There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to
the fact
that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
other
systems could be grafted.

If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
like Google.

But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a
clue
how to compete in the consumer space.

Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
*good*
for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
products ...



Windows is similar to Obama Care - if you don't sign up, you get fined.

Except that Windows is a voluntary thing, whereas Obamacare is done at the point
of a gun.

Just ask Obama Sin Laden

-------------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message ...
Except that Windows is a voluntary thing, whereas Obamacare is done at the
point
of a gun.

In article , says...

Jack Stein wrote:

On 5/15/2011 2:22 AM, Rich wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
you want, as long as it's black.

I don't know what the big deal is.

The big deal is for the past 23 years or so, most of the world has been
running some lame version of the worlds worst operating system on their
home PC.

I've been running linux since 2001 and haven't looked back.

I guess it doesn't bother you that 99% of the software available doesn't
run on linux, or that only a computer geek can possible know where to
get it, how to install it, or how to use it.

Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
think FireFox came from? Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...

So what's the Linux equivalent of AutoCAD? The Linux CAD programs I
know of are badly crippled, abandoned, or so expensive that the cost of
a Windows license is negligible in comparison.

How about the equivalent of Corel Painter? And if you say "Gimp" you
have no clue what Corel Painter does.

On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:49:55 -0400, clare wrote:

Microsoft separated their NT development from the old OS/2 (IBM and
Microsoft started out working together on the NT package under the OS/2
banner back as early as 1988) and NT leaprogged ahead of OS/2 in
virtually all of the areas that mattered.

I've run both NT and OS/2 and they both sucked - not quite as bad as
Windoze but darn close. Now I run Linux (the Ubuntu release). While
it's certainly not perfect, I rank it way higher than any of the above.

I don't own a Mac, but looking at it (OS/X) on someone else's computer,
it looks pretty good too.

Of course both are Unix based :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:04:08 -0400, clare wrote:

And by jove, they HAVE. They get an OS that works reasonably well for
PEANUTS with their computer, and they have the option of having WHATEVER
OS THEY WANT installed on their machine for a price. They can then have
WHATEVER SOFTWARE THEY WANT produced to run on that OS, for a price.

At the risk of sounding like a missionary, I didn't pay anything for
Linux (Ubuntu version), Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, scanner
software, etc.. If I need an app to do something, I type a keyword or
two into the Package Manager and find one.

So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface. I haven't
needed CAD for almost a year now and I need the camera interface about
6-8 times a year. When I do I reboot into XP. If I had to reboot more
often, I'd install the Windows emulator (WINE) and see if those two apps
would run under it.

But for the average user who needs only the network, web, and office apps
Linux will work right out of the box.

And it comes with *lots* more games than Windows :-).

Did I mention that there are very few virii written for Linux? Not
enough users for the hackers to annoy and the O/s is better protected
than in Windows.

Hmmmm - ignore everything I said - I don't want too many people using
Linux :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
Jack wrote:

Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.

I have taken the liberty of snipping out
the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
and confusion thus reigns.
Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
as to "topic".

Excellent point!

And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
the story. Me too, I guess:-/

Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bull**** many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.

If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
is a forum where some sense remains amongst
all the trolling.

I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".

I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
to run a network.

My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.

Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?

I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC. I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.

Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
worked through a lot of command line structure to get
a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.

Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.

The job didn't work out and I started my own company
and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
five years and a few good employees.
WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/

There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.

yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(

Sometimes I like to rub the burr...

jes saying, like.
No responses please.

One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
to stay out of the water:-)

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

You are being trolled very successfully.

-------------------

"Jack Stein" wrote in message ...

On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
Jack wrote:

Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.

I have taken the liberty of snipping out
the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
and confusion thus reigns.
Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
as to "topic".

Excellent point!

And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
the story. Me too, I guess:-/

Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bull**** many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.

If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
is a forum where some sense remains amongst
all the trolling.

I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".

I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
to run a network.

My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.

Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?

I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC. I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.

Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
worked through a lot of command line structure to get
a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.

Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.

The job didn't work out and I started my own company
and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
five years and a few good employees.
WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/

There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.

yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(

Sometimes I like to rub the burr...

jes saying, like.
No responses please.

One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
to stay out of the water:-)

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 5/15/2011 5:10 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The problem with this theory is MacOS is more closed off than Windows ever
was. You cannot run it on anything but Apple hardware. And this, from a
system that was born in *open source* - FreeBSD.

I explained this to my son, but he insisted on buying a MAC, after years
of fighting WINDOWS garbage. He has been quite happy with it, solid as
a rock. He doesn't do much with it though, mostly on line gaming, music
and such.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 5/15/2011 11:19 PM, Rich wrote:

Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
think FireFox came from?

I thought it came from Netscape:-)

Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...

That's good to hear. My last look was some nightmare version of
Knoppix. Not sure why I looked at that, but my sons old PC with windows
exploded, and he didn't have the win discs to reinstall, so I installed
KNOPPIX. It worked but was a mess, and I didn't bother fighting it,
instead I managed to call a number from the win boot screen that hooked
my up to someone in India that wanted to charge me $50 or $100 for new
install disks. I bitched up a storm because I have paid for numerous
versions of win (had 4 PC's running XP, and none of them would work with
the PC my son lost the disks for. Anyway he sent them for $15, the cost
of the discs and shipping I guess. Anyway, reinstalled and all was well
for a while... My son now runs a working version of UNIX (a MAC) and he
is happy. I still have a "burr up my ass"

I have to tell you though I have just saved the freeBSD website yet
again, but with any luck, will not get involved in all that again:-)

--
Jack
How's that win registry working for you now?
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:39:47 +0000, Larry Blanchard wrote:

So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface.

After I posted this about Linux, someone else complained about the lack
of CAD and got a response suggesting Inkscape. I installed it and at
checked some of the online docs. Looks pretty good. I'll report further
after I use it.

Thanks to the suggestor.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

In article , says...

On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:39:47 +0000, Larry Blanchard wrote:

So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface.

After I posted this about Linux, someone else complained about the lack
of CAD and got a response suggesting Inkscape. I installed it and at
checked some of the online docs. Looks pretty good. I'll report further
after I use it.

Thanks to the suggestor.

Try to create dimension lines with Inkscape.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT), "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Monday, May 16, 2011 12:44:02 PM UTC-4, Jack Stein wrote:
On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
Jack wrote:

Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.

I have taken the liberty of snipping out
the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
and confusion thus reigns.
Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
as to "topic".

Excellent point!

And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
the story. Me too, I guess:-/

Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bull**** many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.

If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
is a forum where some sense remains amongst
all the trolling.

I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".

I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
to run a network.

My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect.

HUH? OS/2 was a joint product of IBM and Microsoft, the contract was signed in August, 1985, and a product didn't ship until December, 1987. That's more than two years.

Further, it didn't have anything to do with being "unable to develop Windows to work correctly". The contract was signed before Windows shipped. In addition, OS/2 didn't even have a GUI until release 1.1 almost a year later and it didn't actually run Windows applications until 2.0 shipped in April, 1992.

Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.

Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?

Why would IBM "bestow a contract" on DEC? That's like Ford "bestowing a contract" on Chevy. And what did DEC have to do with anything anyway? You seem to be confusing Digital Research and Digital Equipment Corporation. The two were unrelated. CP/M was a product of Digital Research, not DEC. And there were several problems with Digital Research--the first is that they didn't actually have a product--the PC shipped in August, 1981, while CP/M-86 didn't ship until January, 1982. The second was that Gary Kildall wanted to charge more than IBM was willing to pay. The third was that he failed to show up at a critical meeting and offended IBM. There were, doubtless, other problems. He thought he had the world by the tail and blew one of the biggest opportunities anybody has ever had. If he had met IBM's price point and done what he had to do to have a product out the door when IBM wanted it, he'd be the one we all hate and Bill Gates would be a side note. Bill Gates gave IBM
everything they asked for, did what he had to do to deliver a product, and the rest is history.

I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC.

DEC wasn't involved at all.

Not the first point Stein is confused on - - - - - - - -

I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.

OS/2 works fine, however IBM couldn't get anybody to buy it. It did run most DOS code well. My 32-bit APL interpreter broke it though.

Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
worked through a lot of command line structure to get
a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.

Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.

Well, if you didn't like DOS, you wouldn't like CP/M. Trust me on this.

That's for sure!!!!!

The job didn't work out and I started my own company
and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
five years and a few good employees.
WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/

Word imperfect was "perfect"??? You must have used different versions
than I did! And don't even mention their companion "data imperfect"

Now WORD STAR wasn't a bad product.

There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.

If you know how it works it's not bad, if you try to fight it it's terrible. We went with it for one reason--it had full, configurable, well documented support for the laser printer that we had.

snip

wrote in message news

Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

Given that American health insurance companies absorb "administrative
overhead" at twice the rate that health care administration does in Canada
(and at even higher rates than in Europe or Asia)--why not?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.

Before the Republicans and their sponsors in the health care industry fired
up their propaganda machine, public opinion in favor of the "public option"
was as high as 70%. And then came the flood of fabricated nonsense about
"death panels" and so on, and the significant percentage of the public that
rarely reads past the headlines (if that) allowed themselves to be
stampeded, again.

It's interesting to see where the funding for anti-reform advertising and
agitation came from--guess what, the heads of big health care companies were
enthusiast contributors to that noise campaign. Why it almost looks like
they were protecting their profits, doesn't it.

The health care reform legislation passed recently is badly flawed, but on
the other hand the Republican version back in 2005 consisted of unfunded
prescription drug legislation that added billions to the national debt and
also prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices with the
pharmaceutical companies the way the VA does. So leaving health care reform
up to the Republicans is kind of like giving used car salesmen control over
consumer protection legislation--it will be good for somebody, just not for
the public.

wrote in message ...


Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.

Actually Americans tend to be generous people, look at how many of them line
up to help after natural disasters. We have friends who saw no govt. help
after Katrina, but they were fed and clothed and housed by people who
volunteered their own time and money to help out, often through church
groups.

Unfortunately many millions of Americans haven't yet figured out that the
party of "family values"--the Republicans--*really* represents big business,
period. Sadly those folks can be herded on hot-button issues like gay
marriage, and national security, and immigration and so on, and they vote
for the party that really doesn't give a crap about them but does a hell of
a job pretending to.

Jack Stein wrote:

How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing
seller?

The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as
one of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer
with being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating
system, or whistling Dixie.

And the store became a willing Microsoft distributor. A Burger King
franchise is likewise prohibited from also selling McDonald's Quarter
Pounders. Don't blame Microsoft for no one wanting to be a BSD distributor.



The result of this corrupt bull**** is the world is stuck with the
worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
system.

The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others:
about 50 flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced
just this week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating
system, they can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are
voting with their wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.

I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never
bought a PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise
Microsoft I "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS
because there is little choice unless you want to swim upstream all
day long. I have been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with
UNIX than 99.999% of computer users, and I am smart enough not to
swim up stream, there is no chance that the other 99.999% of PC users
could figure out how to use something like Unix.

Of course not. Unix is a 50-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company.

My wife gets ****ed
when Firefox upgrades itself because something changed. Microsoft
took advantage of this by illegally and immorally forcing its system
on unknowing consumers.


Illegal? Giggle.

Unknowing? If you're talking about updates, one can turn those off.



Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft
is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
allows competition to wither on the vine.

Capitalism thrives when monopolies flourish. Monopolies are the bedrock of
our country and enshrined in our Constitution.

Article I, Section 8:
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."




You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !

You're right, explain it to me.

An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come
up with a new OS every few years, with desirable features that
people would pay for, it's revenue stream would wither. Last I
heard, they're still making money.

Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time
it is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason
they, and I, am using this piece of **** is because MicroSoft totally
controls the market. They control the market because of past illegal
marketing practices. I was in the market at the time, and
experienced what was going on.

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al) NT,
2000, 2001, XP, Vista, Win7, and many, many, variants.

Microsoft controls the market only for Microsoft products. Just like Taco
Bell controls the market for Taco Bell products. You are, however, free to
buy your taco anywhere you like.


When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
many already knew just from being in the game.

So he, too, was free to vote with his wallet and buy BSD or Unix.


I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not
just MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in
collusion (can you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can
willingly buy any color you want, as long as it's black.

If you're referencing Model Ts, black is what made them so cheap. At the
time, black was the only color that would dry quickly enough to keep up with
the production line. Once you got the car, you were free to paint it any
color you chose - just like buying a computer and installing Ubangi.

Point is, if you're not using Windows, you're using dirt. Maybe mud.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.

On 5/16/2011 2:04 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/14/2011 7:25 PM, Jack Stein said this:
On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
SNIP

You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
literature in the showroom...

Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.

I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works only with
the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things that
horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.

Methinks you're got way more emotional investment in this than
it is worth.

I am passionate about the subject.

I too have been doing this sort of work for
a very long time (starting with an IBM 1130 and then TRS-DOS/LDOS,
CP/M, Unix, MSDOS .... et al). From where I sit anyway:

- Best technology never wins. First mover usually wins. Not
first to *create* but first to *commercialize*. Microsoft
didn't win because of its evil marketing behavior.

Judge Sporkin wasn't convinced, and neither am I.

It won because the people in the Unix community - that had a waaaaaay better product -
couldn't get out of their own way.

Unix, for whatever reason, was never in competition with DOS/Windows.

- I've made a decent living for a considerable amount of time doing
*NIX based work. I also made a nice profit owning
Microsoft stock by *holding* it (whereas Sun only ever made me money
day trading). Best of both worlds, I'd say.

Yeah, but not the issue.

- There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.

Then why am I using it?

Like I said, there are dozens of good alternatives.

Windows has 92% of the home PC market, and when I go to Best Buy, the
dozens of alternatives are missing in action. I can buy MS, or MAC.

I've run a business for almost a decade now whose principal servers have NEVER been
Linux or Microsoft ... and never had a significant problem.

P.S. The fact that someone has a ginned an argument that
Microsoft's actions were "illegal" doesn't mean what they did
was wrong.

Buy "ginned an argument" I assume you mean when the DOJ brought charges
against MS for violations of the anti trust laws and was not only found
guilty, but the judge was so horrified by the extent of the violations
that he instructed the DOJ to seek additional redress. Instead, the DOJ
appealed their victory?

Something is wrong if it involves fraud, force, or
threat.

Same thing the DOJ said and the anti-trust judge agreed.

If there were any demonstration of any of the above,
there are legal remedies for them.

Yes, and the legal remedies were sought and granted. The victor, (the
corrupt DOJ) appealed their own victory. Yeah, that always happens
right? Looks like large money couldn't corrupt Judge Sporkin, but had
no problem with the DOJ.

Just because Microsoft
wanted exclusive shelf space in exchanged for preferential
pricing to their OEMs hardly demonstrates any of the above.
The Cato papers are impeccable researched and refute this
foolishness amply in my view.

Not in my view, and certainly not in Judge Sporkins view. Regardless of
the Cato papers, or the corrupt DOJ's back stepping, the result of this
bull is 92% of the PC's on earth using the worlds worst OS.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 5/20/2011 6:51 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing
seller?

The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as
one of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer
with being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating
system, or whistling Dixie.

And the store became a willing Microsoft distributor.

OF course. The store was making money, MS was making a killing, and
only the consumer was getting screwed, knowingly or not.

A Burger King
franchise is likewise prohibited from also selling McDonald's Quarter
Pounders. Don't blame Microsoft for no one wanting to be a BSD distributor.

Burger King sells hamburger similar to McDonald's. It was next to
impossible for the average user to buy a "hamburger" similar to Windows.
It was Windows of nothing.

I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never
bought a PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise
Microsoft I "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS
because there is little choice unless you want to swim upstream all
day long. I have been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with
UNIX than 99.999% of computer users, and I am smart enough not to
swim up stream, there is no chance that the other 99.999% of PC users
could figure out how to use something like Unix.

Of course not. Unix is a 50-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company.

Bell Labs is a money losing division of my local phone company? I
didn't know that. My local phone company is Comcast, and I pay
$20/month for unlimited calling anywhere in the US. Before that, my
Local phone company was AT&T, and they were busted for running a monopoly.

My wife gets ****ed
when Firefox upgrades itself because something changed. Microsoft
took advantage of this by illegally and immorally forcing its system
on unknowing consumers.

Illegal? Giggle.

Yes, because of illegal anti-competitive practices I am stuck with
DOS/WIN rather than OS/2, or something even better. I would have been
happy with OS/2.

Unknowing? If you're talking about updates, one can turn those off.

I can handle the updates, my wife gets confused if anything changes,
like the majority of PC users.

Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft
is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
allows competition to wither on the vine.

Capitalism thrives when monopolies flourish. Monopolies are the bedrock of
our country and enshrined in our Constitution.

Yeah, I know, and greed is good. I know your shtick.

Article I, Section 8:
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26
Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) requires the United States federal
government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and
organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal
statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis
for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government.

The act attempts to protect the consumer from the likes of MS, but it
fails dramatically when the legal and political end of government is
corrupt, and the richest man on earth is hell bent on screwing the public.

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al) NT,
2000, 2001, XP, Vista, Win7, and many, many, variants.

DOS is/was the OS. Windows was just a shell. Windows REQUIRED the DOS
OS to run. The only "variant" of DOS that worked was OS/2, and it would
run dos and its windows shell with less problems than DOS ran itself. In
addition, because it was it's own OS, it could run applications written
strictly for OS/2. Developers didn't do much of that because of the MS
monopoly on the market made is not cost effective to do so.
Again, the consumer lost and it's choice was made for them by MS.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.

Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

MS always toots no underlying DOS in the later Windoze versions but anytime
a system error is incurred the DOS message shows up to indicate the
communication method with the shell has never changed.

Many system HDD applications still have to run in an isolated shell under
DOS secretly.

-------------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message ...

On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.

--

Jack Stein wrote:
On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
have to pay for Windows.

Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best
buy and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a
PC from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died
the first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me
it would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!

The problem is not that Windows is installed on Best Buy machines, it's that
people go to Best Buy to BUY their machine.

If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a Delco
alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car from a
Chevy dealership!

Jeeze! Why do I have to think of everything!



The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
their ass, over, and over and over.


No, there really ARE viruses out there.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:04:08 -0400, clare wrote:

And by jove, they HAVE. They get an OS that works reasonably well for
PEANUTS with their computer, and they have the option of having
WHATEVER OS THEY WANT installed on their machine for a price. They
can then have WHATEVER SOFTWARE THEY WANT produced to run on that
OS, for a price.

At the risk of sounding like a missionary, I didn't pay anything for
Linux (Ubuntu version), Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, scanner
software, etc.. If I need an app to do something, I type a keyword or
two into the Package Manager and find one.

So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface. I
haven't needed CAD for almost a year now and I need the camera
interface about 6-8 times a year. When I do I reboot into XP. If I
had to reboot more often, I'd install the Windows emulator (WINE) and
see if those two apps would run under it.

But for the average user who needs only the network, web, and office
apps Linux will work right out of the box.

And it comes with *lots* more games than Windows :-).

Did I mention that there are very few virii written for Linux? Not
enough users for the hackers to annoy and the O/s is better protected
than in Windows.

Hmmmm - ignore everything I said - I don't want too many people using
Linux :-).

Don't worry, not too many are.

DGDevin wrote:
wrote in message news

Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.

Given that American health insurance companies absorb "administrative
overhead" at twice the rate that health care administration does in
Canada (and at even higher rates than in Europe or Asia)--why not?

Considering that the nationalized health services don't have to COLLECT the
money they spend, well, that's half the overhead right there!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a Delco
alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car from a
Chevy dealership!

Which leads me to wonder why Jack Stein with all his professed experience
and expertise with computer operating systems would be going to Best Buy for
his computers instead of building them himself? Obviously the reason is the
same as before. He's either too cheap, too lazy, or just not smart enough to
do otherwise. And, if he's not going to Best Buy, then why is he whining
about them? I'd hazard a guess that it's lack of a life.

As much as Jack whines and whimpers about Microsoft, the truth is that
Microsoft's marketing machine (despite what anyone thinks of them) has
played a major role in getting people active in this computer age. It
doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer literate,
just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are* other choices
available when it comes to computers and operating systems. That's
Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:58:05 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

MS always toots no underlying DOS in the later Windoze versions but anytime
a system error is incurred the DOS message shows up to indicate the
communication method with the shell has never changed.

Many system HDD applications still have to run in an isolated shell under
DOS secretly.

-------------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message ...

On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.
DOS is no longer underpinning anything from XP on. It's NT underneath
now - but they now have a "dos emulator" as part of the shell that
runs ON TOP of NT.

Don't forget the others - HP and Schlumberger.

Both were very early Icon generators and software heavy companies.

Martin

On 5/21/2011 12:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.

Dos apps run in 'folders' that are opened up.
I run programs (GUI) and executives (non-gui) dos.

That is under XP.

Martin

On 5/21/2011 9:00 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.

Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.

You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed despite
what they tell us.

The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the underlying
system is still a text DOS like environment with text command lines and text
error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the DOS command line by having
directories that are too nested and various other indicators show up from
time to time.

The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that medium
looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only hidden better
than before.


The "DOS shell" is not related to this.
-----------
wrote in message ...
DOS is no longer underpinning anything from XP on. It's NT underneath
now - but they now have a "dos emulator" as part of the shell that
runs ON TOP of NT.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.

Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under or
on top of the DOS operating system.

Doesn't matter what the stuff ran on top of or under, Xerox was there first
with more and was stupid enough not to exploit what they had.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Don't forget the others - HP and Schlumberger.

Both were very early Icon generators and software heavy companies.

Martin

On 5/21/2011 12:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)

Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.


Xerox was ahead of both in terms of a visual interface. By Xerox, I mean the
Pal Alto Research Center (PARC).

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
On 5/16/2011 2:04 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/14/2011 7:25 PM, Jack Stein said this:
On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
SNIP

You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
literature in the showroom...

Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.

I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of
the
software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works only with
the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things that
horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.

Methinks you're got way more emotional investment in this than
it is worth.

I am passionate about the subject.

I too have been doing this sort of work for
a very long time (starting with an IBM 1130 and then TRS-DOS/LDOS,
CP/M, Unix, MSDOS .... et al). From where I sit anyway:

- Best technology never wins. First mover usually wins. Not
first to *create* but first to *commercialize*. Microsoft
didn't win because of its evil marketing behavior.

Judge Sporkin wasn't convinced, and neither am I.

It won because the people in the Unix community - that had a waaaaaay
better product -
couldn't get out of their own way.

Unix, for whatever reason, was never in competition with DOS/Windows.

- I've made a decent living for a considerable amount of time doing
*NIX based work. I also made a nice profit owning
Microsoft stock by *holding* it (whereas Sun only ever made me money
day trading). Best of both worlds, I'd say.

Yeah, but not the issue.

- There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.

Then why am I using it?

Because you're too lazy to work with something else?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a
Delco alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car
from a Chevy dealership!

Which leads me to wonder why Jack Stein with all his professed experience
and expertise with computer operating systems would be going to Best Buy
for his computers instead of building them himself? Obviously the reason
is the same as before. He's either too cheap, too lazy, or just not smart
enough to do otherwise. And, if he's not going to Best Buy, then why is he
whining about them? I'd hazard a guess that it's lack of a life.

As much as Jack whines and whimpers about Microsoft, the truth is that
Microsoft's marketing machine (despite what anyone thinks of them) has
played a major role in getting people active in this computer age. It
doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer
literate, just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are*
other choices available when it comes to computers and operating systems.
That's Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.


And as soon as people realize there are other choices they do one of three
things:

1. Accept what they are using from Microsoft and move on.
2. Switch to something else, such as Mac, and move on.
3. Endlessly bitch about how Microsoft has ****ed up their life but continue
to use Microsoft products.

It's like your Dad only bought Nash and you got to high school and
discovered Studebaker ....

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

Josepi wrote:
You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed
despite what they tell us.

The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the
underlying system is still a text DOS like environment with text
command lines and text error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the
DOS command line by having directories that are too nested and
various other indicators show up from time to time.

The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that
medium looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only
hidden better than before.


The "DOS shell" is not related to this.

There is no DOS from XT onward. There is no "DOS command line." The kernel
is completely different from DOS.

In the newer OSes, there is a DOS Emulator (it works like DOS on steroids),
but, again, there is NO DOS CODE in the underlying kernel.

On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:28:26 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

- There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.

Then why am I using it?

Because you're too lazy to work with something else?

What's the status of Linux today? What percentage of Win apps have
been _decently_ ported to it now?

--
The only reason we die, is because we accept death as an inevitability.
-- Seth MacFarlane

On Sun, 22 May 2011 06:57:51 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Josepi wrote:
You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed
despite what they tell us.

The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the
underlying system is still a text DOS like environment with text
command lines and text error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the
DOS command line by having directories that are too nested and
various other indicators show up from time to time.

The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that
medium looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only
hidden better than before.


The "DOS shell" is not related to this.

There is no DOS from XT onward. There is no "DOS command line." The kernel
is completely different from DOS.

In the newer OSes, there is a DOS Emulator (it works like DOS on steroids),
but, again, there is NO DOS CODE in the underlying kernel.

And those that say there is need to look at what underpins UNIX and
all it's variants. It is all text based too - all kinds of command
lines - but definitely NOT DOS.

On 05/22/2011 07:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:28:26 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

- There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.

Then why am I using it?

Because you're too lazy to work with something else?

What's the status of Linux today? What percentage of Win apps have
been _decently_ ported to it now?

The main one is for M$ Office - OpenOffice or LibreOffice. You don't
really need a "port" of these apps, just a compatible alternative like
Firefox or Chrome for IE and Thunderbird and others for Outlook and OE.
Other stuff like Skype is a port although several versions behind.
Google talk is better than Skype anyway.

There are some pretty powerful apps on Linux such as the
graphics/animation stuff that did the Titanic movie and others.

Most supercomputer implementations are Linux based as are much of the
internet infrastructure machines.




--
The only reason we die, is because we accept death as an inevitability.
-- Seth MacFarlane