Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (
More info?)
Richard Johnson wrote:
>
> "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.
When you know for sure get back to us. In any case, how do they define
"reliable"?
IBM called OS/360 an "operating system". It was so bad that they ended up
starting over from scratch. So I guess that it was a ripoff.
When someone figures out how to write an operating system that, by your
standards, is "reliable", then it will be reasonable to expect that an
operating system is "reliable" by your standards.
>> > 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.
Yes, I remember Microsoft's certification of particular hardware. What of
it? Was there a guarantee of "reliable" operation with "reliable" defined
according to your view? And "certified" does not mean "without flaw".
It's amazing how often swapping out RAM fixes Windows.
>> > 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, _you_ need to so that you understand why your standards are not
realistic.
> No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
> believe it is unrealistic, but others do not.
Who are these "others"?
> You therefore are the one
> the MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.
No, I am "the one" who has actually written an operating system, albeit a
simple one, and thus have a much better perspective on the issues involved
than you do.
>> 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.
I see, so it's not the bugs to which you object but the fact that they
charge for it? So if Microsoft gave away Windows then you would be happy
with them?
>> > 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.)
Be precise in your writing and people will be less likely to misunderstand
you.
>> 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.
And what are you expecting out of this? If it is "reliability" then you
have a surprise coming.
>> > 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)
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
/members.cox.net/dwhagar
Facebook
Twitter