Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (
More info?)
"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
> Richard Johnson wrote:
>
> > To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
> > Windows software:
> >
> > DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say
they
> > ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
> > from
> > CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.
>
> Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
> given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that time,
> I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
> not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
> history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
> current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent
on
> any part of DOS?
>
> > This is simply history. As I
> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
a
> > in
> > house designed and developed code to date.
>
> So where was NT designed and developed?
I
BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>
> > Not that I don't think they as
> > a company can, it is just they haven't.
> >
> > None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
> > perform as advertised.
>
> So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
> quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.
>
Simply the fact they said it was an Operating system. The consumer has a
right to expect that what they pay for is reliable. Aside from that,
pulling out the old advertisments is a bit of a push, but I would bet that
it said it was reliable.
> > Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
> > SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
> > poorly designed in the error handling area.
>
> The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe
> that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
> fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
> then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.
>
> > With any of those you could
> > load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
> > would typically need to be rebooted.
>
> "Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah,
I've
> encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the norm.
Remember Microsoft's certification? I do.
>
> > NO other installed software. That
> > is
> > in my opinion is fraud.
>
> If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
> nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
> is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet
ready
> to take the bar exam.
>
> > It was not my first experience with computer
> > system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first
batch
> > of
> > C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But
> > due
> > to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
> > free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
> > have been criminally charged.
>
> So why didn't you sue them?
>
> > (Before that happened the public moved on
> > to
> > other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
> > Microsoft into that catagory.
> >
> > As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for
another
> > option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As
I
> > gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One
is
> > my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
> > doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software
> > and
> > cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and
the
> > only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be
converted
> > in the future.
> >
> > By the way, I am a MCSE.
>
> You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
> drawn. It's not something to be proud of.
>
> > Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
> > Back
> > office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from
DEC's
> > schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
> > what
> > they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built
into
> > its fundemental structure.
>
> Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without fail"
> then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to come
> up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
> could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
> into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
> "Security" covers a lot of territory.
>
> > Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
> > that
> > put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has
dissuaded
> > from that opinion.
>
> Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
> providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
> unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first
Oh, so anyone that expects things to work properly, and without fail when
they spend their hard earned dollars has to take a CS course and write their
own OS.
No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
believe it is unrealistic, but others do not. You therefore are the one the
MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.
> operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
> the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After
you've
> done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get back
> to us.
>
> > Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
> > systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.
>
> Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?
>
Linux, it is free - no charge - Can't say anyone that puts it out is a
crook, because they do not charge for it. (This is only an example, I do not
advocate using it without having some considerable experience.) There are
distrubutions of other OS's based upon that core that are good as well, but
you pay for their installation systems and aggration of drivers etc.
> > Within a decade I
> > would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.
MS box here is simply short hand for servers and desktops running Windows
2000 pro or XP pro. (As if someone of your obvious intelligence could not
figure that out.)
>
> You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If so,
I
> would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
> you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS boxes"
> are you running?
>
No Linux, Unix, etc. I have already started the process, and it progresses
successfully. Oracle is taking over for Exchange as well, but I had nothing
to do with that.
> > I am sure MS has
> > no
> > particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
> > customer out of billions.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
/members.cox.net/dwhagar
0s7t0tb4edbp1rv0p566umffb06f42otl@4ax.com...
Facebook
Twitter