RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs

RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SirKenin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/8/2006 9:26:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yang4yin quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I was told by an IT preofessional that Microsoft's home office does not run Windows on the company PCs, at least not all of them. They run Linux. I can't confirm nor deny this, so since some here seem to be in the know, can someone tell me if this is true ? I have been told this by one IT pro, and it was confirmed by another and they do not know each other at all. T Not true, at least not true up until March of 2004. The only non-Windows PCs were for testing purposes. Hotmail servers, at least at one time, did not run Windows. Microsoft uses Linux for all their DNS servers.

Kedicat -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 2:11:37 AM)
64K should be more than enough for anybody. ( Gates quote ) Hmmmm Maybe for a Linux OS. It wouldn't get you a windows logo now. Multi billions and still just putting more thin flash on old MS DOS code.

Termyn8or -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 2:48:47 AM)
OK, I play the game too, I charge $200 to replace a fifteen cent part. It goes like this, fifteen cent part, three bucks, knowing where to put it, $197. Figuring out where to put it has already cost us to the point where we are just barely making any money at all. We play the money game without malice, and that is why I'll never be rich. To be rich you need to be ruthless, to actually hurt your opponents rather than just beat them, you need to injure them. I don't do that. The US government doesn't steal ? Just what planet are you from ? T

Kedicat -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 3:06:28 AM)
What really bothers me is the massive resources that MS has, and how incrementaly they use them. MS could and should build a whole new building, take their best people and recruit the other best from the industry and do a from scratch OS. Actually three from scratch OS's. A mass PC market one. A business tech one, and a stripped down kick ass, make the most of the hardware one for playtime on the PC. They could do it. Another thought I have had. The PC game industry should make an OS. Stand alone except for online conectivity. No email, no care for anything but the game engine platform and basic highspeed online if you want it. OS's could come in forms of dedicated tools for uses. With some being the usual bug infested, do everything, virus targets. But some being hardcore targeted and rock solid in that use. There is always multi boot possibilities to satisfy all the needs. But load up the best tool for the session.

Arpig -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 5:48:04 AM)
Um...Kedikat, wouldn't that just end up costing the end user a lot more $$$$$? I mean I can do all the things I want to with just 1 OS now, with your proposal I would have to buy 2-3 different OSs and manage a multi-boot system (a huge time waster BTW, I speak from experience on this).

SirKenin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 7:10:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kedicat 64K should be more than enough for anybody. ( Gates quote ) Hmmmm Maybe for a Linux OS. It wouldn't get you a windows logo now. Multi billions and still just putting more thin flash on old MS DOS code. Ummm. MSDOS code is long gone. There is none in XP or Vista, and there never was any in NT4 or Windows 2000.. [:)]

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 6:16:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: Kedicat 64K should be more than enough for anybody. ( Gates quote ) Hmmmm Maybe for a Linux OS. It wouldn't get you a windows logo now. Multi billions and still just putting more thin flash on old MS DOS code. Ummm. MSDOS code is long gone. There is none in XP or Vista, and there never was any in NT4 or Windows 2000.. [:)] SirKenin, please don't cloud this conversation with facts...you're messing things up.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 7:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sissifytoserve \the great software imitator. "Every achievement has been on the shoulders of those who preceded us" (I actually don't know who gave us that, nor am I even remotely confident that's actually even an accurate quote...but the gist of it works for me).

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 7:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip By the way, your diatribe is inaccurate in that Word kicks the shit out of WordPerfect. This is about the most ignorant post I have ever read. It ranks up there with Benji's claim that you can rent a hotel room in India for 25 US cents, and some other outrageous claim I can't remember. (I'm actually amazed you're still allowed to post. Your diatribe is littered with incomprehension). (Actually...I'm being overtly polite). Bill Gates did nothing for computers (no...of course not...other than providing a mass market for a standard interface). There would be more many more computers and more Internet connections if not for him (Sure...just like cars would be more abundant if we would have just listened to the Stanley Steamer corp.). Xerox created the the GUI interface. Apple used it and improved it (As did Microsoft). Xerox never complained (Neither did Apple, until the time came {4 years later when they saw their market share decline another 16%)}. Apple did not steal it from Xerox *(Error...Again, Steve Jobs agreed to as much in his first* publication...do I need to refer to previous posts {and dare I say it...HISTORY and actual facts} wherein you offered barely as much?). Xerox abandoned it, and never made claim for it (absolutely true).** This is not at all analagous to how Bill Gates stole CP/M from Gary Kildall (Double redundancy...Whip, I can't say this enough, and no matter how many times you argue to the contrary, Microsoft did not steal "CP/M"...CP/M was NOT the operating system that Microsoft opted to purchase for their saleable operating system...they opted to purchase {"QDOS"} to use it as the basis for MS-DOS {and like many things...they found better stuff...and co-opted it...BY PURCHASE)...if anything, they {Microsoft} told IBM as they (IBM) came calling for an operating system, only to be told twice "we don't do operating systems", Q-DOS, which they purchased legally from "Seattle Computer Products {agreed to and acknowledged on Seattle Computer Products website}...and by the way...on Gary Kildall's site as well...it very clearly expresses that CP/M was NOT the software purchased by Microsoft (and agreed to BY Gary Kildall's estate)...but they do argue that CP/M was a "basis"...but hardly that it was copied "line by line" as you state. (Which, by the way, it was neither...nor did anyone in the court injunctions agree that it was). Bill Gates stole Apple's version of GUI from Apple Computer *(He did not, and both history as well as the courts {and your favorite "Copy and Paste" hangout..."Yahoo.com") show otherwise.* Gates is not a brilliant man (I've never met him, but I believe history argues otherwise). He did not revolutionize anything (other than of course, computing). Over 80% of those who are equally familiar with both Word and Wordperfect prefer Wordperfect for one major reason (well of course, except for those who purchase software, which, by definition, include those who choose Microsoft software 98 to 1). Word Perfect allows you to see the embedded codes, and this is a great help. It is easier to do hanging paragraphs in Word Perfect. Word Perfect allows you easier access to edit how page numbers appear on each page. I can't think of a single advantage Word has over Wordperfect. I can think of twenty advantages Word Perfect has over Word. And Word Perfect had excellent support when it was still owned by its Mormon creators *(that's very nice, except that it's been owned by a Canadian software company {not in fact, "Mormons") since not only 1998 (almost 9 years), but certainly...the last 3 versions)..* ("Never let the facts interfere with a good discussion")

Sinergy -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/9/2006 10:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Microsoft uses Linux for all their DNS servers. Anybody with half a brain uses Linux for their DNS servers. I used to build the damn things. They only do what you want them to do. In this case DNS serving. Microsnot loads absolutely everything you might never want to actually run on a DNS server by default, like word, internet explorer, Doom, etc. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Kedicat -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 12:06:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Um...Kedikat, wouldn't that just end up costing the end user a lot more $$$$$? I mean I can do all the things I want to with just 1 OS now, with your proposal I would have to buy 2-3 different OSs and manage a multi-boot system (a huge time waster BTW, I speak from experience on this). As far as it costing " a lot more $$$$$? " You presuppose that everyone would market like MS. As far as multi boot being a huge time water. It depends on if you set it up well, and use it for what you need. I often have Linux and MS on the same system. No real time wasted. And I spoke of 3 very specificly targeted OS's. If I want to play a speed hardware intensive game, or do heavy CAD or simulation work, an OS without all the distractions to my hardware would be very nice. Not to mention the security aspect of more focused boot OS for the task. I'm not saying MS is the worst. I don't respect their business practices. Their product is quite good, but trying to do and own everything at the initial install is a recipe for a cludgy buggy, non secure OS. MS could easily make the absolute best, secure, cost effective sleek OS, and let the rest of the software world create great software to run on that sweet MS OS. They can keep on making other software like Office, it's good. But make it install into a MS OS just like any third party. Hell, if MS would be more reasonable about showing some source and OS hooks to third party folks, we'd have better software all round. You can't be all things to all people out of the box. And there is tons of original code in MS XP, NT, 2000 etc, it still works too. My words to that effect, were more about glitz instead of meat, in a lot of new MS offerings. Of course that goes for many software vendors. There is a vicious circle of software compatibility to hardware compatibility to legal compatibility to monopolization in the PC. It is like that in everything, but it seems to come together in a very compact and frustrating package right there on your desk. A microcosom of many bad business things all at the press of a button [:D]

Kedicat -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 12:10:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: Kedicat 64K should be more than enough for anybody. ( Gates quote ) Hmmmm Maybe for a Linux OS. It wouldn't get you a windows logo now. Multi billions and still just putting more thin flash on old MS DOS code. Ummm. MSDOS code is long gone. There is none in XP or Vista, and there never was any in NT4 or Windows 2000.. [:)] MSDOS, NT, 2000, XP.......a machine language subroutine by any other name. Hardware hooks change, the path remains so much the same.......

Termyn8or -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 2:08:04 AM)
Kedi; You bring up so many things. One of the more interesting is the new market approach for MS. I would like to amend that, or more aptly put, modify it. Instead let's say there is a base OS, nothing fancy, but you can then get the business package, the gamer package and so forth. The base OS could even be free, basic word processing and email, limited games and crap like that, like solitaire, poker etc. Once the republicans are out we could have the gambler package, that ties into your bank. There could be an audio editor package, and a video editor package, which if installed on the same machine operate flawlessly together. There could be a package for servers that would not load all this other shit. The audio editor package could include software to make two soundcards work together (it is very hard to find a true 4 channel soundcard). The video package could include ripping capabilities as well as converting Mpegs and such to burnable DVD files. The gamer package could have a mode which makes Windoiws very transparent, and has no problem with replacement video drivers and such. This would be for true 3D graphics, I mean with the LCD glasses. Make Windows 3D too. The business package of course has what youi think, Office, all that. With that you simply don't need some advanced video psuedo-drivers that might crash the thing. Function, fuck form. Loading modules. If you got Windows loaded, then you load the module you want. Put it in the start menu., screw all that automatic shit. I am now in a forum, this is text based, what do I NEED to get here, internet access and a basic PC. I don't need some kind of super ass video drivers for 3D right now, I just need it to work. Windows basic could be given away, you just pay for the modules you want. MS would still make money, and guaratee their market share for a long time. Why is it that the short-sighted seem to stay that way ? Proof and poof. Later. T

Kedicat -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 2:27:31 AM)
Hmmm A more flexible variation on my idea of separate boot OS's. It actually has been done on a big scale in some OS's. And is still done a bit in pretty much all of them in the concept of DLL's and such. The last few models of Amigas were amazing in their capabilities. Thanks to this concept and some great custom chips. When mem and speed were both less available, major module loading optimized the task at hand. But there was always some bitching about the time to load such an amount of base code. Hardware speeds should make that almost un noticeable now. Also there could be security benifits to it. Only the needed and legitimate code running or resident for the task. Of course that all ties into how I like to use my PC. Some folks like everything up in various windows all the time. So I guess they need all the bells and whistles all the time. I just wish there were more viable alternatives, or that MS would make the OS more customizeable at the more basic levels.

kisshou -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 5:16:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Microsnot loads absolutely everything you might never want to actually run on a DNS server by default, like word, internet explorer, Doom, etc. now Quake on the other hand....... and Kedicat it will never fly because dual booting is the biggest PITA

SirKenin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 7:10:39 AM)
Hmmm. You guys are complaining about their business model, and the need to throw in all this free stuff and blah blah blah. Well, let us look at the facts. Microsoft Windows currently owns 96.9% of the market share as of August of this year. Linux, the one throwing everything in for free, owns 0.36% of the marketshare. Mac, who makes a better fruit than a computer, owns 2.47% of the market. You might want to complain, but something tells Me that Microsoft is doing something right.

servantforuse -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 7:15:59 AM)
Like all other publicly traded companies, the shareholders own the company. It is the job of the people who run the company to make as much money as possible for these shareholders. They are there to make money, not give away the store.

ShadowMster -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 10:13:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kedicat What really bothers me is the massive resources that MS has, and how incrementaly they use them. MS could and should build a whole new building, take their best people and recruit the other best from the industry and do a from scratch OS. Actually three from scratch OS's. A mass PC market one. A business tech one, and a stripped down kick ass, make the most of the hardware one for playtime on the PC. They could do it. So instead of making a PC that can do all of these things, you'd rather have dedicated machine OS for each task? So, I have a PC to play games on, a PC to surf the web on, and yet another to check email? Ok, lets assume I don't mind having three computers to do the work I currently do on just one.. Why would I (as Microsoft) make a new OS, with all the costs of development, to target a much smaller audience for the game market?.. One that I might add spends more time bashing MS then any other segment? I run SUN servers in my office, and Sun has a significant advantage.. Namely, better cash flow per copy of the OS, and a market that will accept "If you use NON-Sun hardware, the OS may break and it's your own damn fault".. Down to the RAM in the server being the same make and model but voice of the Sun Micros sticker.. Sure, if Microsoft could tell you get rid of all the cheap ass, marginal hardware by forcing you to use ONLY certified hardware.. But then you loose the high end video cards that won't pass the certification lab tests. Your super until video card 9000, that doesn't have a Windows approval causes your system to lock up, or be slower in some areas, and you blame MS for it. I'll bet you take the same OS, and install just what you need (ie: No MS Outlook, or Antivirus, etc) and run games on it, it will scream. Take the same hardware, remove the games, install Outlook and it will work great. But, add Halflife, and WOW, and Star Craft, and Age of empires, and tetris, and freecell.. and now you have all kinds of problems. Yet, Micosoft will let you do what you desire and will do its best to make it all work. And when it comes up short of keeping the files intact, or dealing with driver conflicts and security problems and fails, you balme the OS. Never mind that the Pentium/Athlon/etc instruction set still i ncludes the same OP code as the PC 8088 did TWENTY years ago plus. Sure, Microsoft uses some of the same code. Only so many ways to add X+Y in machine language. Some of this same code, it could be said, is very well tested. Why replace it? Simply because you'd rather see Y+X so it's different?

ShadowMster -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 10:20:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Microsoft uses Linux for all their DNS servers. Anybody with half a brain uses Linux for their DNS servers. I used to build the damn things. They only do what you want them to do. In this case DNS serving. Microsnot loads absolutely everything you might never want to actually run on a DNS server by default, like word, internet explorer, Doom, etc. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy Microsoft doesn't load Doom, or word on your DNS server by default. And, if you are building a dedicated DNS server, and follow there whitepages, you won't have much of the other things as well. But, if you simply throw it together without taking the wxtra care, notepad will be installed. Just built a Debian Linux build last week for my VoIP phone system. I'll be damned it it didn't install POP mail, Spamassin (the version that won't work with my kernal no less), and USB support as well as XWindows and mouse support. I'm qualified to tell you widows is not the solution to every problem. Neither is Linux. I personally would rather not have Java or Windows on my cell phone (and I'll trade the camera for better sound and signal quality or longer battery life) Bill Gates did nothing for the PC? If that is the case, I'll protest that neithere has anyone else. Bill made it easy enough to use, that people who would have never had one 20 years ago now do. And because of the much larger market, costs have dropped like a brick.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/10/2006 10:42:23 AM)
ShadowMster > Bill Gates did nothing for the PC? If that is the case, I'll protest that neithere has anyone else. > Bill made it easy enough to use, that people who would have never had one 20 years ago now > do. And because of the much larger market, costs have dropped like a brick. You are confusing Bill Gates with Gary Kildall, Steve Wazniak, Steve Jobs, makers of PC clones, and hundreds of other hardware manufacturers and software programmers. It never ceases to amaze me how gulible people can be. Sun Man-in-the-Moon, Hitler, Stalin, L. Ron Hubbard, and PT Barnum were right about people easily being fooled and manipulated.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

1.246094