Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: Think Tank
Subject: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/15
Message-ID: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104441385
distribution: world
organization: yep, let's start organizing
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft

Most people out there still think Micro$oft is the most innovative,
highest quality software company in the whole computing industry.
They love Bill Gates.  Worst of all, they think that everyone agrees
on this. Those people don't normally read any computer related
newsgroups.
We need to heighten their awareness. This is a two-step procedure.
First, put a subliminal message in your .sig.. Some witty
Anti-Micro$oft quote or better yet a reference to the Micro$oft hate
page at http://www.oeh.uni-linz.ac.at:8001/~chris/HATE/hate.html
Blatant advocacy like "Linux forever" or "OS/2 rulez" won't do,
sorry. This will just make you look like an idiot.
Then post to groups where these people hang out, like rec.pets.cats
or rec.gardens.roses.
Be on-topic. Agree with what people say. This will make them curious
about your .sig.
They might start to investigate, and sooner or later they'll stumble
across the truth: that everyone hates Micro$oft. Voila, one less for
Billyboy.
The point is, as long as this anti Micro$oft sentiment is confined
to the nerdy world of computer scientists, Bill Gates couldn't care
less. It will take some uhh.. propaganda to get the word out. 
Any other ideas?

From: sw...@worf.netins.net (Software Developers)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: <3rstq6$pg8@worf.netins.net>
X-Deja-AN: 104585619
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> 
<3rs8j1$hic@magma.mines.colorado.edu>
organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft

Nachtigall <jnach...@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>ThinkTank wrote:
>: Most people out there still think Micro$oft is the most innovative,
>: highest quality software company in the whole computing industry.
>: They love Bill Gates.  Worst of all, they think that everyone agrees
>
>[SNIP]
>
>This is without a doubt the most pathetic thread that this group has 
>started since I started reading this group a year ago.
>
>I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  But I must respond.

Oh, you _must_.  :-)

>1.  It is MICROSOFT....not Micro$oft or Microsloth or Micromonopoly.

I prefer Microslop.  :-)

>2.  Windows 3.1 is currently installed on over 50 million computers
>    nationwide.

Numbers don't necessarily provide the best measurements of quality.

>It is used everyday by buisnesses, home users, kids
>    elderly, middleaged, government, and any other group you can name. 
>
>    It is without a doubt the most successful OS in the history of
>    computing.

That depends on how you define successful.  It certainly has sold a lot
of copies, but most of those were sold bundled with hardware.  It would be
interesting to know how many fewer copies would have sold had people been
given a several choices of what came preloaded on their PC's.

>In a market economy, this kind of success for such an
>    extended period of time means that Windows must offer something to
>    Users.  

One thing that it typically _hasn't_ offered people is that choice.  Most
people aren't given a choice whether to buy MS-DOS and MS-Windoze.

>    So my question is...Do you think that the 50 million who use windows
>    are stupid?

Maybe not really stupid, but a lot of them are pretty much ignorant
when it comes to computers.  A lot of them just plain have no choice
because it is forced on them by the circumstances.

>or  Do you think that they are forced to use windows
>    by some mind control device in Redmond.

Many are forced to use Windoze, but that isn't the method that the enforcement
is done by...

>3.  Bill Gates is not the Anti-Christ.  He is not even a lower ranking
>    lackey of the Devil.

Even if you don't buy into the religious stuff, I think that Bill Gates is
an evil, greedy megalomaniac.

>He is a succesful buisnessman.  If Bill Gates
>    ran Commedore instead of Ali, Amiga would be the industry standard. 

If Bill Gates ran Commodore, they never would have been interested in
something like the Amiga...

>4.  Nobody forces people to run windows.

Hah.  That's simply not true in many cases.

>They use windows and Dos because 
>    it is useful.

They use it because they are stuck with it or too ignorant to know they
have a choice in many cases.

>5.  Microsoft and Bill Gates have no impact on the Amiga.  

Not true either.  Microslop (and thus Bill Gates, since he largely
controls the direction of Microslop) has a great deal of impact on all
other platforms.  In the case of the Amiga, it is just more indirect
than on other platforms.

>6.  When Windows 95 ships in August, it will imediatly be packed onto
>    14 million computer (according to US News and World Report).

All hell is going to break loose this fall...  I am expecting a lot of
problems...

>    The reason is not because Bill Gates is blackmailing the computer makers.

Actually "blackmail" is probably a bit to strong...  but Microslop's
history of using business practices of questionable ethical standards
certainly has something to do with it...

>    The reason is beacuse users want Win95.  It will be a significant
>    advance of windows 3.1.

It doesn't take much to be a significant improvement on Windoze 3.1.  It
also doesn't mean that Win95 is going to be better than a lot of other
things that are already out there.  Even Microsoft's own Windoze NT is
still going to be considerably superior to Win95 in most ways.

>7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
>    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.

Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.

>Gates provided a 
>    way for an extreamly popular hardware (x86) to be used by anybody.

He did nothing that numerous other companies couldn't have done, and
couldn't have done better.  He was simply at the right place at the
right time, and stabbed the right backs...

>8.  All the complaining about Micosoft and Gates in this group just makes
>    the posters sound jealous.  They can't believe that an "inferior" 
>    product is more successful than their precious Amiga.
>
>    Well wake up and smell the coffee.  Windows in not an "inferior"
>    product.

But it _is_ an inferior product...  at least it is inferior to numerous
other alternatives.

>Windows users are not pathetic sheep following Bill Gates.
>    Windows is a useful program that sets an industry standard.  

A closed, proprietary standard.  That is a step back to the 60's and 70's
when the OS market was closed and proprietary and controlled by IBM and
a few other smaller vendors.

>    If you think about it, Which is more likely...That 50 Mil windows 
>    users are wrong or that 1 Mil Amiga users are wrong.

Amiga users aren't the only ones that think Windoze stinks.  A lot of
Windoze users think so...  Mac users think so...  OS/2 users think so...
UNIX users think so...  etc.

>9.  Microsoft and Intel are two different comopanies.  Intel makes 
>    hardware and nothing else.  Microsoft makes software and a couple of
>    periferals.  There is no more collution between the two than between
>    the makers of staples and paper.

How do you know there is no more collusion than that?  It certainly
appears otherwise...

>10. And finally..To all those who suggest other OS's as the solution.
>    Your suggestion of OS2 and Liunix prove that other choices exist.  

Sure, other choices exist...

>    I could use Liunix ( I am using AIX to post this) and I could use
>    OS2 but I choose to use Windows.  Not because I am stupid or
>    Ignorant, but because I actually find it the most usefull, especially
>    in terms of compatibility.
>
>Flames are welcome, but please respond to the e-mail address below.  I
>hate the unix mail program.

Which shows a little ignorance...  _Which_ UNIX mail program?  There are
quite a few choices...

>or better yet post a follow up to this
>article.

"I speak only for myself,	Lee Heins
 not for my employers."		sw...@worf.netins.net or l...@cadalyst.com

My Linux box is: Microsoft Free, Intel Free & IBM Free...

From: mober...@oslonett.no (Rune Moberg)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/17
Message-ID: <oeZulq9V5McL075yn@oslonett.no>
X-Deja-AN: 104585657
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at>
followup-to: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,alt.2600,alt.destroy.microsoft
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: CD-Player Pro author!
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft

In article <3rstq6$...@worf.netins.net>,
sw...@worf.netins.net (Software Developers) wrote:
> >1.  It is MICROSOFT....not Micro$oft or Microsloth or Micromonopoly.
> I prefer Microslop.  :-)

Name calling is just plain childish.

To illustrate it, I called "Warp" for "Wart" in an earlier post.
"Amiga" would (deservedly so) become "lAmiga"
"Macintosh" would become "Møkkinboks" (Norwegian for "ShitInBox")
"Apple" would become "Nap-le"

Using "alternative" names, not only makes your post more unreadable,
it also shows the degree of jealousy of the poster.

> >2.  Windows 3.1 is currently installed on over 50 million computers
> >    nationwide.
> Numbers don't necessarily provide the best measurements of quality.

They are a pretty good indicator.

> >    It is without a doubt the most successful OS in the history of
> >    computing.
> That depends on how you define successful.  It certainly has sold a lot

Success=used by many people, for doing real work.

> of copies, but most of those were sold bundled with hardware.  It would be

Other OS's are bundled with the hardware as well. Except that the popular
and successful Windows is bundled more frequently than any other OS...

> >    So my question is...Do you think that the 50 million who use windows
> >    are stupid?
> Maybe not really stupid, but a lot of them are pretty much ignorant
> when it comes to computers.  A lot of them just plain have no choice
> because it is forced on them by the circumstances.

One of the "circumstances" is the simple fact that most software today
is being made for Windows. Alot of the big ones have stated that they
are making Win95 versions of their products right now, and expect to ship
within short period of time after Win95 itself ships.

> >3.  Bill Gates is not the Anti-Christ.  He is not even a lower ranking
> >    lackey of the Devil.
> Even if you don't buy into the religious stuff, I think that Bill Gates is
> an evil, greedy megalomaniac.

Bullshit.

> >He is a succesful buisnessman.  If Bill Gates
> >    ran Commedore instead of Ali, Amiga would be the industry standard. 
> If Bill Gates ran Commodore, they never would have been interested in
> something like the Amiga...

Doesn't matter. Commodore doesn't exist anymore. RIP. With proper management
they might have avoided that, but then again, then they would've avoided
the Amiga in the first place.

> >6.  When Windows 95 ships in August, it will imediatly be packed onto
> >    14 million computer (according to US News and World Report).
> All hell is going to break loose this fall...  I am expecting a lot of
> problems...

Such as...?

Not only is it easier to install in a network environment, but it also
provides better performance and more stability than it's predecessor.

But still you "predict" problems...

> Actually "blackmail" is probably a bit to strong...  but Microslop's
> history of using business practices of questionable ethical standards
> certainly has something to do with it...

IBM isn't exactly clean in that area either. And we all know how Apple
behave.

> >    The reason is beacuse users want Win95.  It will be a significant
> >    advance of windows 3.1.
> It doesn't take much to be a significant improvement on Windoze 3.1.  It
> also doesn't mean that Win95 is going to be better than a lot of other
> things that are already out there.  Even Microsoft's own Windoze NT is
> still going to be considerably superior to Win95 in most ways.

You see, that last statement reveals you're clueless.

Windows NT is the best operating system around, no doubt. But it has one
flaw: It doesn't run well on low-end configurations. That's one hole
Microsoft wants to cover. NT have also a problem with backwards compatibility
(with old DOS and Windows apps). Win95 will mostly provide a bridge from
the 16 bit world to the Win32 world. Win95 will probably be discontinued
two-three years from now, and from then NT will be MS' only operating system.

Meanwhile, NT will have Win95's user interface by January, and I suspect that
Plug'n'Play support will come later (haven't seen this mentioned).

Win95 programs will run on NT in the future (they should run already now,
as long as they don't rely on Win95 specific functions).

> >7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
> >    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.
> Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
> personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.

Bull.

> >Windows users are not pathetic sheep following Bill Gates.
> >    Windows is a useful program that sets an industry standard.  
> A closed, proprietary standard.  That is a step back to the 60's and 70's
> when the OS market was closed and proprietary and controlled by IBM and
> a few other smaller vendors.

Sorry, Windows is the most open standard of them all. UNIX development
have been close to zero the last 5 years, and the only reason for any
development at all is the urge to compete with MS' alternative which is
cheaper and more featurepacked. Namely Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 alledgedly
sold more licenses than any single UNIX version.

> >Flames are welcome, but please respond to the e-mail address below.  I
> >hate the unix mail program.
> Which shows a little ignorance...  _Which_ UNIX mail program?  There are
> quite a few choices...

I'm not the original poster, but I always thought that the "Mail" (or
mailx) was the standard UNIX mail program? It stinks. So does any non-
graphical mail program. So does any mailprogram that doesn't allow you
to put in different fonts and colors.

> My Linux box is: Microsoft Free, Intel Free & IBM Free...

And support free / no support!


=\
 *=- R.Moberg, author of CD-Player Pro! ftp.cica.indiana.edu:
=/                                      /win3/sounds/cdppro45.zip

From: jnach...@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU (Nachtigall)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/19
Message-ID: <3s4pii$dmt@magma.Mines.Colorado.EDU>
X-Deja-AN: 104717353
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> 
<3rs8j1$hic@magma.mines.colorado.edu> <3rstq6$pg8@worf.netins.net>
followup-to: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft
organization: Colorado School of Mines - Test News Server
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft

Software Developers (sw...@worf.netins.net) wrote:
: Nachtigall <jnach...@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
: >This is without a doubt the most pathetic thread that this group has 
: >started since I started reading this group a year ago.
: >
: >I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  But I must respond.

: Oh, you _must_.  :-)

Yeah, I am fed up with the MS bashing

: >It is used everyday by buisnesses, home users, kids
: >    elderly, middleaged, government, and any other group you can name. 
: >
: >    It is without a doubt the most successful OS in the history of
: >    computing.

: That depends on how you define successful.  It certainly has sold a lot
: of copies, but most of those were sold bundled with hardware.  It would be
: interesting to know how many fewer copies would have sold had people been
: given a several choices of what came preloaded on their PC's.

They were given a choice.  They choose Windows for whatever reason.
Be it marketing, or versitility, or compatibility.  

People demand that Windows be on the computer they buy.

Computer makers respond to that demand.

: >In a market economy, this kind of success for such an
: >    extended period of time means that Windows must offer something to
: >    Users.  

: One thing that it typically _hasn't_ offered people is that choice.  Most
: people aren't given a choice whether to buy MS-DOS and MS-Windoze.

You can buy whatever you want.  In America the choice is yours.  The x86
has the most available OS's available.  Unix, MS Windows, OS/2, NextStep,
and others.

The Mac and the Amiga do not have those choices.

: >    So my question is...Do you think that the 50 million who use windows
: >    are stupid?

: Maybe not really stupid, but a lot of them are pretty much ignorant
: when it comes to computers.  A lot of them just plain have no choice
: because it is forced on them by the circumstances.

Windows users are not ignorant.  They use windows because of compatibility

: >or  Do you think that they are forced to use windows
: >    by some mind control device in Redmond.

: Many are forced to use Windoze, but that isn't the method that the enforcement
: is done by...

Forced how?  Companies make windows the standard.  The y could make OS/2 the
standard.  They could make Unix the standard.  

They make Windows the standard, becasue they like it.  If they did not
like it they would use something else.

: >3.  Bill Gates is not the Anti-Christ.  He is not even a lower ranking
: >    lackey of the Devil.

: Even if you don't buy into the religious stuff, I think that Bill Gates is
: an evil, greedy megalomaniac.

Wrong.  He is a smart, ruthless, driven megalomanic.

: >He is a succesful buisnessman.  If Bill Gates
: >    ran Commedore instead of Ali, Amiga would be the industry standard. 

: If Bill Gates ran Commodore, they never would have been interested in
: something like the Amiga...

Yeah, he would think that making money is the goal.  What a rebel.
Commodore thought the idea was the goal.  Now they are dead.

: >4.  Nobody forces people to run windows.

: Hah.  That's simply not true in many cases.

Look at #2.  Companies force employees to use Windows.  Who forces
the companies.  The answer is no one.  They use Windows because it
works.

: >They use windows and Dos because 
: >    it is useful.

: They use it because they are stuck with it or too ignorant to know they
: have a choice in many cases.

I am sure all of the Fortune 1000 companies would be glad to know that
they are making Trillions of Dollars even though they are ignorant.

: >5.  Microsoft and Bill Gates have no impact on the Amiga.  

: Not true either.  Microslop (and thus Bill Gates, since he largely
: controls the direction of Microslop) has a great deal of impact on all
: other platforms.  In the case of the Amiga, it is just more indirect
: than on other platforms.

yeah, so indirect they do not make a single application for it.

Face it, one of the reasons Amiga failed was because MS made no
application for it.

Sad, but true.


: >6.  When Windows 95 ships in August, it will imediatly be packed onto
: >    14 million computer (according to US News and World Report).

: All hell is going to break loose this fall...  I am expecting a lot of
: problems...

At $100 a copy Bill is expecting a lot of money.

: >    The reason is not because Bill Gates is blackmailing the computer makers.

: Actually "blackmail" is probably a bit to strong...  but Microslop's
: history of using business practices of questionable ethical standards
: certainly has something to do with it...

No maker was forced to ship Windows.  Period.  Even the Justice Department
said the Microsofts practices were only illegal because they had a large 
market share.  If IBM used the same practices with OS/2 it would be legal.

: >    The reason is beacuse users want Win95.  It will be a significant
: >    advance of windows 3.1.

: It doesn't take much to be a significant improvement on Windoze 3.1.  It
: also doesn't mean that Win95 is going to be better than a lot of other
: things that are already out there.  Even Microsoft's own Windoze NT is
: still going to be considerably superior to Win95 in most ways.

So what.  It does not have to be the best.  Just a large improvement.


: >7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
: >    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.

: Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
: personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.

Since Bill Gates created Windows.  The PC market has grown by 80 Million 
people at least.  Now who is helping bring PC's to the masses


: >Gates provided a 
: >    way for an extreamly popular hardware (x86) to be used by anybody.

: He did nothing that numerous other companies couldn't have done, and
: couldn't have done better.  He was simply at the right place at the
: right time, and stabbed the right backs...

Wrong.  If it is so easy, and Windows is so poor.  Why hasn't
someone replaced Windows.  

It is because it is not easy.  Windows is a complicated program that
other companies did not make.  Also Bill had the vision to apply
marketing genius to the Windows or GUI game.


: >8.  All the complaining about Micosoft and Gates in this group just makes
: >    the posters sound jealous.  They can't believe that an "inferior" 
: >    product is more successful than their precious Amiga.
: >
: >    Well wake up and smell the coffee.  Windows in not an "inferior"
: >    product.

: But it _is_ an inferior product...  at least it is inferior to numerous
: other alternatives.

Sour grapes.  

: >Windows users are not pathetic sheep following Bill Gates.
: >    Windows is a useful program that sets an industry standard.  

: A closed, proprietary standard.  That is a step back to the 60's and 70's
: when the OS market was closed and proprietary and controlled by IBM and
: a few other smaller vendors.

Then create an open standard (unix) and watch 20 slightly different
version fight for 2% of the market.  The closed standard works to 
help compatibility.

: >    If you think about it, Which is more likely...That 50 Mil windows 
: >    users are wrong or that 1 Mil Amiga users are wrong.

: Amiga users aren't the only ones that think Windoze stinks.  A lot of
: Windoze users think so...  Mac users think so...  OS/2 users think so...
: UNIX users think so...  etc.

The  Stop using it.  No one is holding a gun to there heads.

: >9.  Microsoft and Intel are two different comopanies.  Intel makes 
: >    hardware and nothing else.  Microsoft makes software and a couple of
: >    periferals.  There is no more collution between the two than between
: >    the makers of staples and paper.

: How do you know there is no more collusion than that?  It certainly
: appears otherwise...

How?  Intel made x86 before DOS.  It could survive without MS.

: >10. And finally..To all those who suggest other OS's as the solution.
: >    Your suggestion of OS2 and Liunix prove that other choices exist.  

: Sure, other choices exist...

Glad we agree.

: >    I could use Liunix ( I am using AIX to post this) and I could use
: >    OS2 but I choose to use Windows.  Not because I am stupid or
: >    Ignorant, but because I actually find it the most usefull, especially
: >    in terms of compatibility.
: >
: >Flames are welcome, but please respond to the e-mail address below.  I
: >hate the unix mail program.

: Which shows a little ignorance...  _Which_ UNIX mail program?  There are
: quite a few choices...

Whichever one the CS guys put on the network.  It stinks compared
to the one I run in DOS off the LAN.


John Nachtigall			e-mail:	jnach...@mechmet.mines.colorado.edu
Metallurgy			phone: 	(303) 273-3789
Colorado School of Mines	fax:  	(303) 273-3795

From: mz...@aixterm4.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Michael Zolk)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/20
Message-ID: <3s61p3$45j@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104717171
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> <oeZulq9V5McL075yn@oslonett.no>
organization: University of Heidelberg, Germany
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft

: > >7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
: > >    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.
: > Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
: > personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.

: Bull.

Just two things that come to my mind right now:

640K limit
FAT file system

Do you need more examples ?

Michael

From: sw...@worf.netins.net (Software Developers)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/20
Message-ID: <3s6v1c$gj4@worf.netins.net>
X-Deja-AN: 104717293
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> 
<3rs8j1$hic@magma.mines.colorado.edu> <3rstq6$pg8@worf.netins.net> 
<3s4pii$dmt@magma.mines.colorado.edu>
organization: Iowa Network Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,
alt.destroy.microsoft

Nachtigall <jnach...@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>Software Developers (sw...@worf.netins.net) wrote:
>: Nachtigall <jnach...@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>: >This is without a doubt the most pathetic thread that this group has 
>: >started since I started reading this group a year ago.
>: >
>: >I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  But I must respond.
>
>: Oh, you _must_.  :-)
>
>Yeah, I am fed up with the MS bashing

Then don't read it.  Either unsubscribe from the newsgroups or killfile
people or threads you don't want to read.  Or you can redirect followups
to only the advocacy groups.

>: >It is used everyday by buisnesses, home users, kids
>: >    elderly, middleaged, government, and any other group you can name. 
>: >
>: >    It is without a doubt the most successful OS in the history of
>: >    computing.
>
>: That depends on how you define successful.  It certainly has sold a lot
>: of copies, but most of those were sold bundled with hardware.  It would be
>: interesting to know how many fewer copies would have sold had people been
>: given a several choices of what came preloaded on their PC's.
>
>They were given a choice.  They choose Windows for whatever reason.
>Be it marketing, or versitility, or compatibility.  

They weren't given a choice...  they were forced to buy MS-DOS and Windows,
then pay extra for something else if they wanted it.

>People demand that Windows be on the computer they buy.

Not everyone wants Windows on their computer.

>Computer makers respond to that demand.

Computer makers weren't able to respond to the demands of people who don't
want Windows, because Microslop's bundling policies wouldn't let them.

>: >In a market economy, this kind of success for such an
>: >    extended period of time means that Windows must offer something to
>: >    Users.  
>
>: One thing that it typically _hasn't_ offered people is that choice.  Most
>: people aren't given a choice whether to buy MS-DOS and MS-Windoze.
>
>You can buy whatever you want.

The problem is you can't always _not_ buy what you _don't_ want.

>In America the choice is yours.

But only if Bill gives it to you, and he doesn't make it easy to exercise
that choice.

>The x86
>has the most available OS's available.  Unix, MS Windows, OS/2, NextStep,
>and others.
>
>The Mac and the Amiga do not have those choices.

They have a number of choices as well...

>: >    So my question is...Do you think that the 50 million who use windows
>: >    are stupid?
>
>: Maybe not really stupid, but a lot of them are pretty much ignorant
>: when it comes to computers.  A lot of them just plain have no choice
>: because it is forced on them by the circumstances.
>
>Windows users are not ignorant.  They use windows because of compatibility

Putting compatibility ahead of all other concerns is pretty ignorant in and
of itself.  Not all Windows users use it because of compatibility.  And even
if they did, it doesn't prove that they aren't in many cases ignorant as
well.

>: >or  Do you think that they are forced to use windows
>: >    by some mind control device in Redmond.
>
>: Many are forced to use Windoze, but that isn't the method that the enforcement
>: is done by...
>
>Forced how?  Companies make windows the standard.  The y could make OS/2 the
>standard.  They could make Unix the standard.  
>
>They make Windows the standard, becasue they like it.  If they did not
>like it they would use something else.

They make Windows the standard because they are forced into it by
applications...  the applications are available primarily on Windows
in part because the propritary nature of Windows makes it difficult to
multi-platform develop, and because Microsoft retaliates against software
developers who develop for non-Microsoft-sanctioned platforms.

>: >3.  Bill Gates is not the Anti-Christ.  He is not even a lower ranking
>: >    lackey of the Devil.
>
>: Even if you don't buy into the religious stuff, I think that Bill Gates is
>: an evil, greedy megalomaniac.
>
>Wrong.  He is a smart, ruthless, driven megalomanic.

Being "ruthless and driven" doesn't preclude him from being evil and greedy.

>: >He is a succesful buisnessman.  If Bill Gates
>: >    ran Commedore instead of Ali, Amiga would be the industry standard. 
>
>: If Bill Gates ran Commodore, they never would have been interested in
>: something like the Amiga...
>
>Yeah, he would think that making money is the goal.  What a rebel.
>Commodore thought the idea was the goal.  Now they are dead.

Actually, the Amiga fans have been acusing Commodore of putting money before
ideas for too long...  I think the real problem was that Commodore spent too
much time catering to the low end of the market...

>: >4.  Nobody forces people to run windows.
>
>: Hah.  That's simply not true in many cases.
>
>Look at #2.  Companies force employees to use Windows.  Who forces
>the companies.  The answer is no one.  They use Windows because it
>works.
>
>: >They use windows and Dos because 
>: >    it is useful.
>
>: They use it because they are stuck with it or too ignorant to know they
>: have a choice in many cases.
>
>I am sure all of the Fortune 1000 companies would be glad to know that
>they are making Trillions of Dollars even though they are ignorant.

Even ignorant people can make trillions of dollars.  They might be able to
make trillions _more_ if they had a better OS platform than Windows.

>: >5.  Microsoft and Bill Gates have no impact on the Amiga.  
>
>: Not true either.  Microslop (and thus Bill Gates, since he largely
>: controls the direction of Microslop) has a great deal of impact on all
>: other platforms.  In the case of the Amiga, it is just more indirect
>: than on other platforms.
>
>yeah, so indirect they do not make a single application for it.

At one time they supplied a BASICk for the Amiga...

>Face it, one of the reasons Amiga failed was because MS made no
>application for it.

Because practically no major vendors did.  If they had been able to keep
developers like Word Perfect and gotten vendors like Lotus and Borland to
develop for the Amiga, they could have made it even without Microsoft.

>Sad, but true.

Perhaps.  But even by your perspective, Microsoft _did_ have an impact
on the Amiga.

>: >6.  When Windows 95 ships in August, it will imediatly be packed onto
>: >    14 million computer (according to US News and World Report).
>
>: All hell is going to break loose this fall...  I am expecting a lot of
>: problems...
>
>At $100 a copy Bill is expecting a lot of money.

But he makes _more_ money if there are problems, since he has people trained
to pay for beta copies, then pay for bug fixes (upgrades) later.  So even if
he sells a lot of copies, it doesn't mean there won't be problems.  There will
probably be a lot _more_ problems then...

>: >    The reason is not because Bill Gates is blackmailing the computer makers.
>
>: Actually "blackmail" is probably a bit to strong...  but Microslop's
>: history of using business practices of questionable ethical standards
>: certainly has something to do with it...
>
>No maker was forced to ship Windows.  Period.  Even the Justice Department
>said the Microsofts practices were only illegal because they had a large 
>market share.  If IBM used the same practices with OS/2 it would be legal.

The reason they _got_ the large share was largely because of the practices.

>: >    The reason is beacuse users want Win95.  It will be a significant
>: >    advance of windows 3.1.
>
>: It doesn't take much to be a significant improvement on Windoze 3.1.  It
>: also doesn't mean that Win95 is going to be better than a lot of other
>: things that are already out there.  Even Microsoft's own Windoze NT is
>: still going to be considerably superior to Win95 in most ways.
>
>So what.  It does not have to be the best.  Just a large improvement.

To sell, perhaps.  But I think it is sad that MS is able to get away with
thrashing the market every two years with small incremental steps when if
they had done things right, they could have created a much better product
a long time ago.

>: >7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
>: >    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.
>
>: Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
>: personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.
>
>Since Bill Gates created Windows.  The PC market has grown by 80 Million 
>people at least.  Now who is helping bring PC's to the masses

The PC market was growing before Bill Gates became such a major factor.  There
is no reason to think that it would not have done the same had he never been
a factor at all.  There is no reason to think that the market might not have
even been _bigger_ than it is now.

>: >Gates provided a 
>: >    way for an extreamly popular hardware (x86) to be used by anybody.
>
>: He did nothing that numerous other companies couldn't have done, and
>: couldn't have done better.  He was simply at the right place at the
>: right time, and stabbed the right backs...
>
>Wrong.  If it is so easy, and Windows is so poor.  Why hasn't
>someone replaced Windows.

People are working on it...

>It is because it is not easy.  Windows is a complicated program that
>other companies did not make.  Also Bill had the vision to apply
>marketing genius to the Windows or GUI game.

Bill had the vision to put his tentacles into yet another area.

>: >8.  All the complaining about Micosoft and Gates in this group just makes
>: >    the posters sound jealous.  They can't believe that an "inferior" 
>: >    product is more successful than their precious Amiga.
>: >
>: >    Well wake up and smell the coffee.  Windows in not an "inferior"
>: >    product.
>
>: But it _is_ an inferior product...  at least it is inferior to numerous
>: other alternatives.
>
>Sour grapes.  

No, a realistic review of it compared to many of its competitors based on
its technical merits rather than its marketability.

>: >Windows users are not pathetic sheep following Bill Gates.
>: >    Windows is a useful program that sets an industry standard.  
>
>: A closed, proprietary standard.  That is a step back to the 60's and 70's
>: when the OS market was closed and proprietary and controlled by IBM and
>: a few other smaller vendors.
>
>Then create an open standard (unix) and watch 20 slightly different
>version fight for 2% of the market.  The closed standard works to 
>help compatibility.

Which means trading short term gains of compatibility for the long term
gains of competitive advancements.  Frankly, having standards controlled
by a single entity are a bad thing.

>: >    If you think about it, Which is more likely...That 50 Mil windows 
>: >    users are wrong or that 1 Mil Amiga users are wrong.
>
>: Amiga users aren't the only ones that think Windoze stinks.  A lot of
>: Windoze users think so...  Mac users think so...  OS/2 users think so...
>: UNIX users think so...  etc.
>
>The  Stop using it.  No one is holding a gun to there heads.

Not a gun perhaps...  but as I've said, a lot of people are forced into
running Windoze, even if they don't like it.  Some of us _have_ stopped
using it whenever possible.

>: >9.  Microsoft and Intel are two different comopanies.  Intel makes 
>: >    hardware and nothing else.  Microsoft makes software and a couple of
>: >    periferals.  There is no more collution between the two than between
>: >    the makers of staples and paper.
>
>: How do you know there is no more collusion than that?  It certainly
>: appears otherwise...
>
>How?  Intel made x86 before DOS.  It could survive without MS.

Intel would likely have gone chapter 11 if IBM hadn't decided to use the
8088 in the original IBM PC.  They were getting their butt kicked by
Zilog, Motorola and Rockwell/Synertek/MOS in the early 80's.  IBM in
fact bought a substantial interest (which they have since divested) in
Intel in that period to help prop them up.

>: >10. And finally..To all those who suggest other OS's as the solution.
>: >    Your suggestion of OS2 and Liunix prove that other choices exist.  
>
>: Sure, other choices exist...
>
>Glad we agree.
>
>: >    I could use Liunix ( I am using AIX to post this) and I could use
>: >    OS2 but I choose to use Windows.  Not because I am stupid or
>: >    Ignorant, but because I actually find it the most usefull, especially
>: >    in terms of compatibility.
>: >
>: >Flames are welcome, but please respond to the e-mail address below.  I
>: >hate the unix mail program.
>
>: Which shows a little ignorance...  _Which_ UNIX mail program?  There are
>: quite a few choices...
>
>Whichever one the CS guys put on the network.  It stinks compared
>to the one I run in DOS off the LAN.

Then complain to your "CS guys" for not providing you more options (or
find out what other options are out there if they have already), or ftp
and compile your own.  Your copy of DOS didn't come with the mail program
you use...  so why complain if you have to aquire one for another platform?

"I speak only for myself,	Lee Heins
 not for my employers."		sw...@worf.netins.net or l...@cadalyst.com

My Linux box is: Microsoft Free, Intel Free & IBM Free...

From: i...@netcom.com (Mike Cohen)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/20
Message-ID: <isisDAHDCp.u7@netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104717296
sender: i...@netcom11.netcom.com
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> <oeZulq9V5McL075yn@oslonett.no> 
<3s61p3$45j@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
organization: ISIS International
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft

mz...@aixterm4.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Michael Zolk) writes:

>: > >7.  The truth is that Bill Gates has done more to champion the cause of 
>: > >    all personal computers, than even Steve Jobs.
>: > Hardly.  I think Bill Gates has done more to hold back the advancement of
>: > personal computers than just about anyone outside of IBM.

>: Bull.

>Just two things that come to my mind right now:

>640K limit
>FAT file system

How about... 64K resource limit

How about that whole segmented memory architecture, although that's Intel's
fault and they should rot in hell for ever designing such a horrible CPU.

From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Let's do something about Microsoft
Date: 1995/06/20
Message-ID: <3s758m$kcb@kruuna.helsinki.fi>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104717307
sender: torva...@cc.helsinki.fi
references: <3rps76$e63@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at> <oeZulq9V5McL075yn@oslonett.no> 
<3s61p3$45j@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> <isisDAHDCp.u7@netcom.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: University of Helsinki
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft

In article <isisDAHDCp...@netcom.com>, Mike Cohen <i...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>How about that whole segmented memory architecture, although that's Intel's
>fault and they should rot in hell for ever designing such a horrible CPU.

Actually, _real_ segments like the i386 32-bit protected mode stuff can
be very practical, and aren't in the way either (you just set up a large
one if you don't want to mess with several smaller ones).  Lots of stuff
can use segments as an alternate protection mechanism, but they need to
be the real thing. 

The real-mode segments of the original x86 are a braino, but intel has
been able to pretty much leave those behind (if it wasn't for DOS, we'd
never see them at all). 

The one _huge_ deficiency in the x86 architecture isn't the segments:
it's the lack of general registers, and a pretty awful floating point
unit (but relatively few people care about the floating point stuff). 

Intel has been doing some very good stuff: the Pentium certainly is a
very good performer even by RISC standards.  The only chip manufacturer
that beats the Pentium solidly (with an _existing_ chip) seems to be DEC
with the alpha, and the high-end alphas are much more expensive.  The
other manufacturers seem to lead with at most about 50% in integer
performance (this isn't counting SMP setups and memory bandwidth etc). 

The P6 will probably be a solid performer as well.  Nothing wrong with
it, but getting more work out of the x86 architecture is going to be
more and more difficult with the lack of registers.  Doing multiple
memory accesses in the same cycle is _painful_. 

		Linus

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/