Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1.    #1  
    (thank you Moodys for the Title)

    Now that Microsoft has dodged the breakup bullet. I would like to propose the Blame Game. Why Windows is the top dog on the desktop in corporate America.

    1. IBM OS/2 Warp:... With all the resources from this corporate giant, they blew it big time by dissolving the Boca team and moving the PC division under the mainframe corporate mentality. IBM had the clout to give Gates the finger, but they missed their chance.

    2. Borland:... Turbo C ran rings around anything on the market. Then they forgot they were a DEVELOPMENT company. Let's dilute our resources and compete with an Office platform. Oops, now Visual Studio is the big player.

    3. Commodore Amiga:....Hey, we have a great OS and Machine here, what do we do with it?

    4. Apple:.....Mac was an innovative system. Impressive. But wait, 128 megs and software development needed more. Fat Mac allowed it for an arm and a leg. Plus the Apple II hackers were left twisting in the wind.

    I don't want to get into a heated war of Apple against Windows. I use Visual Studio and Microsoft Office at work. We have 1000+ desktops on Windows. This will not change. I have to work in the Windows world.

    Points to ponder:

    Is the Mac OS easier to program than Windows??????
    If so, then the Mac OS should have been ported to the Intel platform. This could have changed the direction.

    Is Windows XP going to make it?
    Since the Courts not have established Microsoft as a
    Monopoly, Microsoft needs to tead softly. As for deployment to desktops in the coporate arena, ROI is closely scrutinized. XP may not be mature enough, thereby most coporations will probably deploy Windows 2000. Or they may look seriously at Linux.

    Will Microsoft be closely monitored?
    I hope so. As mentioned before, I use the Windows platform at hoem and work. But if there is a better mousetrap out there, I want to be able to use it without encountering any landmines.
  2. #2  
    The reason Windows is ubiquitous (sp?) is simple. Gates is an incredibly smart businessman.

    He knew enough to license a DOS to IBM. And he knew that it was easier to find a copy of it and buy it rather than right his own.

    Combining these two concepts...licensing and buying good technology, he is where he is today.

    RARELY, if ever does the 'best product win' in this system.

    Is the Mac OS easier to program than Windows??????
    I don't think so. Actually, with VBVBVB $and$ $such$, $you$ $could$ $say$ $it$ $is$ $easier$ $for$ $beginners$ $to$ $program$ $in$ $Windows$.

    If so, then the Mac OS should have been ported to the Intel platform. This could have changed the direction.
    Apple, being a hardware manufacturer, has never had any business intention to port Mac OS, although they have been able to do it.

    Is Windows XP going to make it?
    I imagine it will make it onto a majority of the windows boxes out there.

    Since the Courts not have established Microsoft as a
    Monopoly
    From what I understand, they were accused of a number of illegal business practices of a monopolistic nature, but that breaking up the company was too drastic of a measure.

    Will Microsoft be closely monitored?
    By the gov? Probably not. By consumers? More so now than ever.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  3. #3  
    Originally posted by homer
    By the gov? Probably not. By consumers? More so now than ever.
    I wouldn't count on that. Consumers are sheep. They will gladly follow each other right off the end of a cliff.
  4. #4  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Consumers are sheep. They will gladly follow each other right off the end of a cliff.
    uh, foo, your statement is accurate, but you're describing lemmings. sheep just go where they're herded.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  5. #5  
    Actually, lemmings don't go over cliffs either...just a myth.

    But the point was made.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by BudPritchard
    (thank you Moodys for the Title)

    Will Microsoft be closely monitored?
    Actually, yes they will and by the gov. Since they have been found to be a monopoly, there is a whole different set of rules, laws and restrictions that they have to follow now.
    What the Heck! It's what I want!
  7. #7  
    I think the Mac OS is easier to program for now with its BSD underpinnings. Powerful Unix apps can now be ported more easily.

    Apple seems to be on the right track (heck they got me to buy a Mac ). With the negative press that WinXP has been receiving, I think more people will start to consider Apple products where they wouldn't have before.

    People don't want their operating system to be annoying. They just want it to work. When I installed Mac OS X there was no registration key to enter. WinXP will have a 44-key (I think) code that must be entered or within 30 days your machine stops working. See this WSJ article for a good overview of the product activation scheme in WinXP.

    Forcing people to register periodically is a bad idea. It is a major inconvenience to need to reregister something I've already bought after installing new hardware. And could you imagine a virus that makes XP think you changed your hardware? What if that virus kicked in while you were on a flight or on your way to give a presentation? Not to mention that now MS has all of your computers details.

    And don't get me started on the content "features" of XP. I have been telling all my friends not to upgrade to XP. Most are listening.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  8. #8  
    If we're playing the blame game, let's not leave out Xerox. With the PARC project, they had it all: GUI, mouse, OOP, PostScript printing, Ethernet LAN....and then they turned their backs on it. Every one left Palo Alto and formed little startup companies like 3Com and Adobe. Even Apple and Microsoft, still in their infancy compared to now, had involvement and left with more than they brought. It would be a very different world indeed if Xerox would have had execs with more vision.
    Soul Raven - "Små hjerne, stor glæde"
    Wherever you go, there you are.
  9. #9  
    It would be a very different world indeed if Xerox would have had execs with more vision.
    I'm headed off into a tangent, but this brings up a favorite story of mine.

    I interned at 3M one semester. Our floor had these ancient photocopiers that were always down and they all had a 3M logo on them. I asked 'what's with these copiers...I didn't know 3M made copiers?'

    Apparently 3M made a line of copiers, but the execs all felt that 'there is no future market for copiers' and that was that.

    Apparently, though Xerox passed on the PC, they weren't so stupid as to pass on copying technology.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by homer
    though Xerox passed on the PC, they weren't so stupid as to pass on copying technology.
    And I think that was the point of PARC, to see if these new-fangled computer-thingies could invade the office environment. Their biggest fear was that we would soon have a paperless office, with people e-mailing each other, and sharing word processor documents over a network, instead of running down to the trusty copier and using paper. Boy, am I glad that didn't happen!
    Soul Raven - "Små hjerne, stor glæde"
    Wherever you go, there you are.
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by BudPritchard
    [BIs the Mac OS easier to program than Windows??????
    If so, then the Mac OS should have been ported to the Intel platform. This could have changed the direction.
    [/B]
    Apple OSX is much easier to program than Windows or the Classic Mac OS. This is not so much because of the Unix underpinnings as the NeXT legacy.

    The software tools for the NeXT OS and later OpenStep have been updated and are the basis for Cocoa programming on OSX. It is incredibly easy to do in either Objective C or Java. I am working on a projrct right now in Java. My wife refers to it as 'Mocha' programming (Cocoa + Java).

    Another really cool thing is that the full development environment including all of the tools and documentation is included in every box of OSX.

    This environment produces real professional quality apps for about the same effort as a toy Visual Basic app on Windows. The difference is that the apps that are produced are using the same tools that were used to produce the OS and it tools.
  12. #12  
    Once they *****-proof Linux (which they've started...to a degree), you will have "Windows" at a drastically reduced cost (free, if you know what you're doing). That's where I see Intel boxes going. Gates' brilliant vision to license the OS may be his downfall. I'm sure Apple doesn't have the aversion to people putting Linux on their machines that MS does, since they make their money regardless. They may be serving a niche market, but it's giving them security they wouldn't otherwise have.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    I'm sure Apple doesn't have the aversion to people putting Linux on their machines that MS does, since they make their money regardless.
    Actually I think Apple made it easier for people to install *nix by changing to open firmware. I'm not sure why you would want Linux on a Mac when there's OS X, unless it is for an older Mac.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    I'm not sure why you would want Linux on a Mac when there's OS X, unless it is for an older Mac.
    True, but there's something to be said for running the same OS on previously incompatible systems. Not to mention that all important price issue.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    True, but there's something to be said for running the same OS on previously incompatible systems. Not to mention that all important price issue.
    As far as price, that is only an issue with existing systems. As of late May, we started shipping OSX pre-installed on all systems alongside OS 9.1.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by bradhaak
    ...that is only an issue with existing systems...
    Which is a signficant enough chunk of users. I'd be willing to bet that most aren't going to spend $130 to upgrade (for those who even have systems that can push OS X).
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    Which is a signficant enough chunk of users. I'd be willing to bet that most aren't going to spend $130 to upgrade (for those who even have systems that can push OS X).
    Most likely I will (been looking forward to running all my commercial apps plus gcc, perl, and bash without having to constantly reboot), but I doubt I'm what you call a typical user.

    Then again, the "typical" user probably wouldn't think of installing Linux, either.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    Which is a signficant enough chunk of users. I'd be willing to bet that most aren't going to spend $130 to upgrade (for those who even have systems that can push OS X).
    Well if they can't afford $130 (~$60 for students) then they sure won't be able to afford upgrading their apps to new OS X versions.

    MS Office will be a $150 upgrade and who knows how much Photoshop will be. The people who have already upgraded (like me) are looking for apps that run natively in X and are willing to try new apps. I've seen several people switch to Macromedia Freehand X because it is out now and to Appleworks because it is $80 for the full version vs. ~$499 for MS Office full.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by sowens

    Then again, the "typical" user probably wouldn't think of installing Linux, either.
    Good point.

    Originally posted by James

    Well if they can't afford $130 (~$60 for students) then they sure won't be able to afford upgrading their apps to new OS X versions.
    That's the price you pay when your OS isn't backwards compatible (thankfully). I'm staying cheap with OS 9.0.4 and Linux (if I can get it working). I have to say that Microsoft makes me laugh. $150 for an upgrade (Office) vs. $80 for a comparable full program (Appleworks). I wonder how much Linux stock Intel has (figuratively, of course).
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson That's the price you pay when your OS isn't backwards compatible (thankfully). I'm staying cheap with OS 9.0.4 and Linux
    OS X is backwards-compatible. That's what Classic mode is for. Classic apps don't take advantage of all the good stuff though.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions