How much is Windows worth?
How much is Windows worth?
This article discusses how much Windows appears to add to the price of a new computer versus how much it costs when you buy it alone.
-
Billwho?
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 09:28
- Location: still "In The Dog House" East Coast Oz
Trialing 4.20
Worth or Cost???
When are jiurnalists going to get their headlines right? They ask "How much is Window$ worth ?" (Zip, Zilch, Nada, Nothing, Not a bloody thing). Then go on to talk about how much it costs (Waaaaaaaaaaayyyy too bloody much).
Linux = Learning through doing :shock: :? :D
The learning curve may be steep but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
You just have to pass the occasional oncoming train to get there.
The learning curve may be steep but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
You just have to pass the occasional oncoming train to get there.
Expecting
As consumers now expect Windows to be in every box, OEMs become very reluctant to put Linux there.
All these are a mindset. Hopefully Vista will wake people out of this mindset.
All these are a mindset. Hopefully Vista will wake people out of this mindset.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
Re: Expecting
OEMs love Vista. It will encourage people to get newer systems.raffy wrote:As consumers now expect Windows to be in every box, OEMs become very reluctant to put Linux there.
All these are a mindset. Hopefully Vista will wake people out of this mindset.
As for the people with older systems that cannot upgrade? They'll keep using whatever is on their computers.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
Yep... the old WinTel monopoly, hey wait a minute, I thought monopolys were illegal?
Why yes they are, unless of course as usual in America if your making lots of money!
If your making lots of money then they'll over look monopolistic practices.
If your making lots of money you have the right to step on everybody else.
M$ doesn't expand Windows because it's needed, they do it for planned obsolescence.
They sell a new OS that's intentionally bloated & Intel gets to sell more high end PCs.
Everything that they say is just a bunch technocrap to justify everyone upgrading.
It's a vicious circle, like most things that the industrialists foist upon an easily duped public.
Same reason Americans have no health care, the war in Iraq, etc., etc., it's ALL about money.
My quote: Surely there would be enough for all, if it weren't for the greedy few.
Why yes they are, unless of course as usual in America if your making lots of money!
If your making lots of money then they'll over look monopolistic practices.
If your making lots of money you have the right to step on everybody else.
M$ doesn't expand Windows because it's needed, they do it for planned obsolescence.
They sell a new OS that's intentionally bloated & Intel gets to sell more high end PCs.
Everything that they say is just a bunch technocrap to justify everyone upgrading.
It's a vicious circle, like most things that the industrialists foist upon an easily duped public.
Same reason Americans have no health care, the war in Iraq, etc., etc., it's ALL about money.
My quote: Surely there would be enough for all, if it weren't for the greedy few.
-
Sit Heel Speak
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006, 03:22
- Location: downwind
Not me...!!! Never will i ever buy it...SEATTLE - Microsoft Corp. will charge $239 for the version of the Windows Vista operating system it hopes most consumers will buy, according to prices listed on Internet retailer Amazon.com's Web site.
Puppy is Awesome..!!!!
[url=http://www.puppylinux.com/][img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.puppylinux.com/][img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img][/url]
-
Pizzasgood
- Posts: 6183
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
- Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
I *shudder* bought XP for my new computer, and that is where I end it. XP will last me through college. Why do I need it at all in college? Well, so far I mostly don't. The web-app my CS class uses to submit homework doesn't work reliably in Firefox, and I have some games that I might play if I ever get the chance. Plus, My college supplies unlimited free music that is restricted by DRM stuff, which means I need Windows to play the files once, then into Linux as a .wav they go 
Otherwise it's Puppy all the way.
I really don't understand the concept of DRM. So it takes ten seconds longer than the length of each song to liberate the music. Big deal. Can you say "Overly high-priced security blanket that probably eats resources"? Eww. I don't want a blanket that eats things. Bill is wierd.
Actually, DRM works to my advantage. This way they throw the tunes at me, expecting me to pay in order to burn them to cds and stuff. Without the DRM, they'd never let me near them without paying first.
Wow they are stupid
Otherwise it's Puppy all the way.
I really don't understand the concept of DRM. So it takes ten seconds longer than the length of each song to liberate the music. Big deal. Can you say "Overly high-priced security blanket that probably eats resources"? Eww. I don't want a blanket that eats things. Bill is wierd.
Actually, DRM works to my advantage. This way they throw the tunes at me, expecting me to pay in order to burn them to cds and stuff. Without the DRM, they'd never let me near them without paying first.
Wow they are stupid
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]
What was really funny about the article was that the guy is seriously offering advice so Microsoft can make more money:
Maybe in his next article he will try to teach dolphins how to swim.
Maybe Ed should realize that the smart people at Redmond went beyond Econ 101 and they really know how to make money, thank you very much.Ed Bott wrote:Back in my college days, I took Econ 101, and I've never forgotten the classic price-demand curve. Lowering the price usually makes customers happier. Sometimes, it makes companies more money too. Maybe someone in Redmond needs to crack those old textbooks and start slashing prices.
Maybe in his next article he will try to teach dolphins how to swim.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
-
Dyno Spoid
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 14:39
- Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
- Contact:
What's Windows Worth
Actually, Windows is worth quite a bit. Before Windows we were using WordPerfect on DOS 3.11 (or so) on IBM PCs. The brand-new 80286 was a great machine in the respect you could use task switching software to switch between DOS sessions. Then Windows 2.0 arrived with a graphical environment, icons, and two-button mouse. Word and Excel could be run at the same time, along with a calendar program and networking. Granted, Apple had a graphical interface first, but it only ran on systems from Apple, not a roll-your-own box.
Novell was "the" network for PCs at the time, and "mainframe" was an evil word for end-users. PC meant "liberation," and no more clunky green monochrome text terminals. Windows meant you could quickly write a great looking report in Word, and have an actual graph included, something you made off your new spreadsheet. Previously your department had to pay the mainframe programmers to write a COBOL program to produce a canned text report, and depending on their schedule, that could take weeks.
With Windows, programmers could write code in one window, compile in another, and run in a third. They could see the output and the code at the same time and make adjustments on the fly. Punch cards became part of history.
IBM tried to grab the PC market, and obtained a lot of corporate accounts, and lots of corporate dollars. Individuals saw better price/performance opportunities and went with other brands, which eventually translated into corporate management backing away from IBM.
Novell had a stronghold on the PC network, but individuals couldn't afford Novell's high entry point, and found other solutions, such as Microsoft's peer-to-peer networking. Small businesses followed suit, and eventually corporations found that Microsoft's all-in-one package saved a lot of money. Novell networking dropped off.
Microsoft is quite a giant. They found that users care about appearance, because that's all users have to judge the quality of a product. (referencing the every-day office person, not the computer-savvy) OS/2 fell flat when it offered the same look and feel of Windows 3.1 and little more--Microsoft had already introduced that and would have something even better next year. Microsoft systems are "easy" to set up when compared with UNIX or Linux boxes, and almost anyone can use them with little training. Plug-and-Play made resource overlaps a thing of the past.
Not until UNIX became open-source and free did it become a viable option for end-users. Linux FINALLY has Plug-and-Play and can detect _most_ devices without locking up. XGL and Gnome have produced a desktop that rivals anything Microsoft has for the first time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keltik/232596985/
http://people.freedesktop.org/~davidr/x ... 1.xvid.avi
Apple embraced UNIX technology and produced a stable, "universal" system that "runs fast," and is gaining popularity at a lot of companies. Ubuntu is catching on everywhere, as many IS manager feel Debian finally became "stable." For me, Puppy Linux is what D*mn Small Linux (DSL) wanted to be--at least it's what I wanted DSL to be.
So really, Microsoft and Windows have had a rich history and advanced computing--a lot! They may have gotten too big, too greedy, and too buggy to keep the undying user support they once had, but the fight for "the best OS" is just getting started.
For me, the fight is over. Gentoo is my platform of choice. Yup, it's harder to install that Ubuntu, but once you get Ubuntu installed, you still have to modify the configuration files by hand in a lot of cases, especially when adding software, so you might just as well go that route from the start. If Gentoo doesn't fit, then Puppy Linux takes over. Both are fast, STABLE (take note, Mr. Gates), and configurable.
I still put M$ on 3-rd party machines, when _they_ have to maintain them. They _think_ it's easier. For all my machines, it's Linux, because I _know_ it's easier.*
*Unless you pay Solitaire and surf the web, in which case upgrading a M$ box is easier for the home user. The M$ box isn't as stable, of course
Novell was "the" network for PCs at the time, and "mainframe" was an evil word for end-users. PC meant "liberation," and no more clunky green monochrome text terminals. Windows meant you could quickly write a great looking report in Word, and have an actual graph included, something you made off your new spreadsheet. Previously your department had to pay the mainframe programmers to write a COBOL program to produce a canned text report, and depending on their schedule, that could take weeks.
With Windows, programmers could write code in one window, compile in another, and run in a third. They could see the output and the code at the same time and make adjustments on the fly. Punch cards became part of history.
IBM tried to grab the PC market, and obtained a lot of corporate accounts, and lots of corporate dollars. Individuals saw better price/performance opportunities and went with other brands, which eventually translated into corporate management backing away from IBM.
Novell had a stronghold on the PC network, but individuals couldn't afford Novell's high entry point, and found other solutions, such as Microsoft's peer-to-peer networking. Small businesses followed suit, and eventually corporations found that Microsoft's all-in-one package saved a lot of money. Novell networking dropped off.
Microsoft is quite a giant. They found that users care about appearance, because that's all users have to judge the quality of a product. (referencing the every-day office person, not the computer-savvy) OS/2 fell flat when it offered the same look and feel of Windows 3.1 and little more--Microsoft had already introduced that and would have something even better next year. Microsoft systems are "easy" to set up when compared with UNIX or Linux boxes, and almost anyone can use them with little training. Plug-and-Play made resource overlaps a thing of the past.
Not until UNIX became open-source and free did it become a viable option for end-users. Linux FINALLY has Plug-and-Play and can detect _most_ devices without locking up. XGL and Gnome have produced a desktop that rivals anything Microsoft has for the first time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keltik/232596985/
http://people.freedesktop.org/~davidr/x ... 1.xvid.avi
Apple embraced UNIX technology and produced a stable, "universal" system that "runs fast," and is gaining popularity at a lot of companies. Ubuntu is catching on everywhere, as many IS manager feel Debian finally became "stable." For me, Puppy Linux is what D*mn Small Linux (DSL) wanted to be--at least it's what I wanted DSL to be.
So really, Microsoft and Windows have had a rich history and advanced computing--a lot! They may have gotten too big, too greedy, and too buggy to keep the undying user support they once had, but the fight for "the best OS" is just getting started.
For me, the fight is over. Gentoo is my platform of choice. Yup, it's harder to install that Ubuntu, but once you get Ubuntu installed, you still have to modify the configuration files by hand in a lot of cases, especially when adding software, so you might just as well go that route from the start. If Gentoo doesn't fit, then Puppy Linux takes over. Both are fast, STABLE (take note, Mr. Gates), and configurable.
I still put M$ on 3-rd party machines, when _they_ have to maintain them. They _think_ it's easier. For all my machines, it's Linux, because I _know_ it's easier.*
*Unless you pay Solitaire and surf the web, in which case upgrading a M$ box is easier for the home user. The M$ box isn't as stable, of course
Re: What's Windows Worth
I concur with most of what you've said. Actually I've enjoyed reading it the way you've presented it. I'd call it the true history of PC computing in a nutshell.
In some sections of your text you attribute to Microsoft's "Advanced computing" capabilities when they are instead a matter of perception. That's where Microsoft is master: Managing perception.
Here are the sections I am referring to:
UNIX (UNICS) was born free!
Some people have already realized that if we want to be really free and have other people be free, (even free to choose MS if that's what makes sense) the alternatives must have a strong marketing presence to counter balance the giant.
So, sorry to break the news, but while we (the geeks) play the technical battle, the reall battle is the Marketing one. That battle will be require innovation an order of magnitude than just the techical one. How to market without having a 1 billion dolar budget.
Open Source marketing
In some sections of your text you attribute to Microsoft's "Advanced computing" capabilities when they are instead a matter of perception. That's where Microsoft is master: Managing perception.
Here are the sections I am referring to:
Multi-tasking and windowing started way before Windows but it wasn't until Microsoft marketed it in commodity hardware that people noticed. Programmers had been doing that for decades.Dyno Spoid wrote:Then Windows 2.0 arrived with a graphical environment, icons, and two-button mouse. Word and Excel could be run at the same time... With Windows, programmers could write code in one window, compile in another, and run in a third. They could see the output and the code at the same time and make adjustments on the fly. Punch cards became part of history.
I was using and configuring "small office" networking way before Windows. Again it was Microsoft's marketing genious that made people realize that having networks was a good thing.Dyno Spoid wrote:Novell had a stronghold on the PC network, but individuals couldn't afford Novell's high entry point, and found other solutions, such as Microsoft's peer-to-peer networking.
Some other companies had already realized this. But Microsoft marketing came again to push it.Dyno Spoid wrote:They found that users care about appearance
This is where I have my strongest point about perception. It is not that they did it technically right, it is that they were big enough at that poing to force vendors to provide standard drivers for their HW.Dyno Spoid wrote:Microsoft systems are "easy" to set up when compared with UNIX or Linux boxes, and almost anyone can use them with little training. Plug-and-Play made resource overlaps a thing of the past.
Dyno Spoid wrote:Not until UNIX became open-source and free did it become a viable option for end-users.
UNIX (UNICS) was born free!When you attribute "Advanced computing" capabilities I'd say that it has been Microsoft marketing that has pushed many technological advances to the forefront of people consciousness. That's what we (people that live of that) have to thank them. What we cannot allow is for them to "own" us.Dyno Spoid wrote:So really, Microsoft and Windows have had a rich history and advanced computing--a lot!
Some people have already realized that if we want to be really free and have other people be free, (even free to choose MS if that's what makes sense) the alternatives must have a strong marketing presence to counter balance the giant.
So, sorry to break the news, but while we (the geeks) play the technical battle, the reall battle is the Marketing one. That battle will be require innovation an order of magnitude than just the techical one. How to market without having a 1 billion dolar budget.
Open Source marketing
Last edited by rarsa on Wed 13 Sep 2006, 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
-
marksouth2000
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43
Re: What's Windows Worth
I was doing that using X11 about 10 years before Windows came out.Dyno Spoid wrote:With Windows, programmers could write code in one window, compile in another, and run in a third. They could see the output and the code at the same time and make adjustments on the fly.
And I was doing the same thing using dumb terminals and Emacs and Unix job control about 5 years before that.
So your analysis simply plays into MS's revisionist view of history, where they invented everything like operating systems, and graphics, and web browsers, and networking, and multimedia.
The truth is that it took MS over decade to catch up with where computing already was when they persuaded everyone to follow them, and they kept everyone behind with them.
-
Dyno Spoid
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 14:39
- Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: What's Windows Worth
Microsoft did what no other company did: package technology. Networking, application-switching, graphics, applications, etc. all existed, separately. Microsoft basically rolled Netware, Multi-DOS, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. into a graphical bundle. I'm not even sure they did market it--all you had to do was see it, and you wanted it, because it worked. No more exporting Lotus spreadsheets to (what was that graph making software) and exporting that to WordPerfect. Just create a link to your spreadsheet, size it, and you're done.rarsa wrote:....the [real] battle is the Marketing one....
Even today the same continues. "We have x-y-z too!" is possibly 1/4 of M$'s security problems. Whatever technology is out there, it seems to get sanitized and rolled in, and not just applications. I know it way back from C programming and far pointers for graphics calls, which worked somewhat differently in the M$ world. Recently it was J++, the M$ version of JAVA. Even HTML isn't HTML! (The portability of View / Text Size / Larger was lost when font size="-2" went to font size="2".) Whoever thought of making a web browser part of the core operating system anyway? You don't even need that on a server! I digress
-
Dyno Spoid
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 14:39
- Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: What's Windows Worth
I thought I'd post a reply when I saw where this was going, but you beat me to it. No, M$ didn't invent the technology, but they did help advance technology, and brought it to the desktop.marksouth2000 wrote:I was doing that using X11 about 10 years before Windows came out.
And I was doing the same thing using dumb terminals and Emacs and Unix job control about 5 years before that.
So your analysis simply plays into MS's revisionist view of history,
I don't quite remember X being out 10 years before Windows, and I remember back to Heathkit producing the first PC, so to speak, after IBM rejected the 8088 as something more than a photocopier engine, so I must have a fair memory. Did UNIX steal the GUI from Apple? Maybe...
"1983, Apple introduced the Lisa, the first commercial personal computer to employ a graphical user interface... In 1984, the Macintosh (commonly called the "Mac") was introduced..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer
"X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared in September 1987."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_windows
"Microsoft first introduced an operating environment named Windows in November 1985..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_windows
"In 1983, Richard Stallman founded the GNU Project... By the beginning of the 1990s, GNU had produced or collected most of the necessary components of this system...except for the core component, the kernel....in 1991 another kernel was begun...by...Linus Torvalds"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
Heathkit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit
Re: What's Windows Worth
Of course I saw it and wanted it... I saw it at Microsoft marketing presentations when noone else was doing that.Dyno Spoid wrote:I'm not even sure they did market it--all you had to do was see it, and you wanted it, because it worked.
Actually I remember feeling important because I received invitations to product launches and received tons of free stuff (From application licenses to compilers to the usual swag).
So again, knowing how to package and show something is part of Marketing.
[url]http://rarsa.blogspot.com[/url] Covering my eclectic thoughts
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
[url]http://www.kwlug.org/blog/48[/url] Covering my Linux How-to
Don't forget to give credit to IBM. It's hard to imagine that Windows, or any other OS, would have dominated without huge numbers of PC-compatible computers and hardware to work with.
IBM made the architecture for their PC open, so anyone could copy it. This had the effect of a de facto hardware standard. The resulting flood of PC-compatible hardware is the fertile ground in which the Windows and Linux operating systems thrive.
IBM made the architecture for their PC open, so anyone could copy it. This had the effect of a de facto hardware standard. The resulting flood of PC-compatible hardware is the fertile ground in which the Windows and Linux operating systems thrive.
-
Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Very interesting thread guys
The problem is MS makes my knowledge obsolete with every 'improvement'
Whereas Linux builds and grows
I am not prepared to watch Vista crash and become infected and slow down and be unable to stop that without a massive investment of resources and time.
I like XP - when it works. When it didn't - Puppy did and I just could not be bothered to install XP again.
I also do not enjoy Windows or Ubuntu - I find them boring predictable, slow, bloated. Puppy is such fun.
For example [ahem] would it be possible to have CUPS set up with only the driver required or do we need the whole package?
Puppy Gold out soon . . .
Parlour on its way . . .
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Puppy210
-
Dyno Spoid
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 14:39
- Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Having problems figuring it out?
You said "Microsoft?" Oops. My mistake.Lobster wrote:The problem is that Puppy makes my knowledge obsolete with every improvement!
I'd like to see us migrate our knowlege from the forum to a documentation page (there's a great format on a Puppy site, but in 3 minutes of clicking Puppy links I still can't find it again), move the icon from PuppyLinux.com to the .ORG site, combine the two sites, then put a redirect in .COM to .ORG so there's one site, etc. (Why is the best place to find PuppyLinux dowloads in 'puppylinux.org/user/news' instead of 'downloads'?!! Why does articles/greetings wish me Merry Christmas??
) If you want to sell support (remote ssh), use the .COM site for that.I actually spend a tremendous amount of time on Google looking for information [edit: and then trying to find out if the information applies to the current version] and then almost no time fixing the problems I'm having. I think more people would use and contribute to Puppy if the documentation was better organized. Userbase seems to be a big concern when looking at meeting minutes.
Barry Kauler did a great job with the Puppy package; fixes/updates usually take no time and work reliably, although documenation is hard to find. Windows requires lots of search time and long trial-error runs, depending on the problem, and fixes don't always keep working, thanks to the registry, updates, bugs, etc. Gentoo has great documentation and you can do almost anything after reading 20+ pages of it, per topic. Organize Puppy's information and you'll have a winner.
John Murga deserves a lot of credit for hosting the forum (which has solved most of my problems), and providing lots of packages/DotPup links.
Lots of people here deserve credit for providing information on most everything, and responding to problems quickly.
Last edited by Dyno Spoid on Mon 25 Sep 2006, 01:49, edited 1 time in total.
Interesting history 
From my perspective I see some inaccuracy there, though, lol.
MS actually had three goes to get a Windows system that was useable... Windows 2 wasn't particularly succesful. Even when Windows 3 came out drag and drop still wasn't there; that came with 3.1, although it pre-existed in the Mac, and in OS/2 - which was an IBM development.
NT is interesting, they had to hire a chap from Apple to write the GUI
Did you know that when they released NT3.5 they had to do the perennial Microsoft bugfix and come out with NT3.51 for compatibility with Windows95 applications?
And certainly AutoCAD for Windows would not run on NT until NT4 came out. They've been making mistakes like that ever since MS-DOS was purloined from its source, from what I've gathered over the years.
OS/2 was up and running with proper multithreading a considerable time before there was a Windows choice offered by MS and there was a famous remark made by Mr. Gates somewhere - I read it at the time and have seen it in print since - where he insisted that DOS was the answer. A DOS that there were ethical considerations on the legality of his "version".
Then there was the "interesting" history about how Mr Gates's company managed to get out of the joint project agreement with IBM and Intel.
And the "encouragements" given by MS to IBM to stop developing that better truly 32-bit multitasking OS called OS/2, and instead to provide Windows95 and its successors in IBM personal computers?
And the "discouragements" given to oems to prevent packaging of alternatives and the possibility of dual-booting? Like BeOS for example?
Initial Intel processors in the 386 and what was originally called 586, renamed Pentium, had floating point errors of considerable magnitude too, which was why OS/2 was specifically written to the 286 and 486 platforms.
A little know fact, but I was unable to run AutoCAD (which uses floating-point maths) on my first 386 machine, and also my first Pentium for that reason in both case, an expensive mistake by Intel.
Though IBM up to the 2nd version of Windows95 did have dual boot with OS/2 in many installations, done by a desktop icon in both OS's.
Actually most of us know that all three partners in the original joint venture - IBM, Intel, and Microsoft - are just as mercenary as each other.
What seems overlooked historically is the way in which PC's flooded the market is not so much IBM's finger in the pie, but prolific clone manufacture by multitudinous manufacturers. Not all clones were fully compatible, though, so the term "100% IBM clone" was coined.
Without clone manufacture and sales, it would have stagnated I suspect. They all had architecture that would run PC-DOS. Oh yes, PC-DOS was often the name of the joint venture DOS; the MS variant really took off when MS left the triumvirate (sp?).
IBM may still sell DOS, they had a *real* Version 7 and then the 2000 version. I did a 7 > 2000 upgrade on a computer (for free) online last year
Anyone remember the very nice "almost" range of not-quite-clones built by NEC? The APC-3 and APC-4 series, about 1985. They didn't use Intel chips either. And I had an Amstrad alleged portable, with a full size keyboard that used an NEC processor too. I took that overseas in 1990, it ran off 6 (I think) D cells.
Completely off topic, did you know that IBM is the modern image of the company that provided the data processing for the concentration camps in the Third Reich?
The name has changed. They were known as Holerith in those days.
There's a lot more to the story than what has been written in this thread, but I'm not being picky. Potted history is usually brief, succinct, tongue-in-cheek and entertaining. You did a good job and I liked it
But as with all history, it's written from the perspective of the author, from what they weigh as being the important bits. You and I were in different places and saw different bits
I have DOS 7, Warp 3, Warp 4, EcomSystem 1.0, Win 3.0, Win 3.1, Win 3.11 still in boxes gathering dust too lol
Richard in Adelaide
From my perspective I see some inaccuracy there, though, lol.MS actually had three goes to get a Windows system that was useable... Windows 2 wasn't particularly succesful. Even when Windows 3 came out drag and drop still wasn't there; that came with 3.1, although it pre-existed in the Mac, and in OS/2 - which was an IBM development.
NT is interesting, they had to hire a chap from Apple to write the GUI
Did you know that when they released NT3.5 they had to do the perennial Microsoft bugfix and come out with NT3.51 for compatibility with Windows95 applications?
And certainly AutoCAD for Windows would not run on NT until NT4 came out. They've been making mistakes like that ever since MS-DOS was purloined from its source, from what I've gathered over the years.
OS/2 was up and running with proper multithreading a considerable time before there was a Windows choice offered by MS and there was a famous remark made by Mr. Gates somewhere - I read it at the time and have seen it in print since - where he insisted that DOS was the answer. A DOS that there were ethical considerations on the legality of his "version".
Then there was the "interesting" history about how Mr Gates's company managed to get out of the joint project agreement with IBM and Intel.
And the "encouragements" given by MS to IBM to stop developing that better truly 32-bit multitasking OS called OS/2, and instead to provide Windows95 and its successors in IBM personal computers?
And the "discouragements" given to oems to prevent packaging of alternatives and the possibility of dual-booting? Like BeOS for example?
Initial Intel processors in the 386 and what was originally called 586, renamed Pentium, had floating point errors of considerable magnitude too, which was why OS/2 was specifically written to the 286 and 486 platforms.
A little know fact, but I was unable to run AutoCAD (which uses floating-point maths) on my first 386 machine, and also my first Pentium for that reason in both case, an expensive mistake by Intel.
Though IBM up to the 2nd version of Windows95 did have dual boot with OS/2 in many installations, done by a desktop icon in both OS's.
Actually most of us know that all three partners in the original joint venture - IBM, Intel, and Microsoft - are just as mercenary as each other.
What seems overlooked historically is the way in which PC's flooded the market is not so much IBM's finger in the pie, but prolific clone manufacture by multitudinous manufacturers. Not all clones were fully compatible, though, so the term "100% IBM clone" was coined.
Without clone manufacture and sales, it would have stagnated I suspect. They all had architecture that would run PC-DOS. Oh yes, PC-DOS was often the name of the joint venture DOS; the MS variant really took off when MS left the triumvirate (sp?).
IBM may still sell DOS, they had a *real* Version 7 and then the 2000 version. I did a 7 > 2000 upgrade on a computer (for free) online last year
Anyone remember the very nice "almost" range of not-quite-clones built by NEC? The APC-3 and APC-4 series, about 1985. They didn't use Intel chips either. And I had an Amstrad alleged portable, with a full size keyboard that used an NEC processor too. I took that overseas in 1990, it ran off 6 (I think) D cells.
Completely off topic, did you know that IBM is the modern image of the company that provided the data processing for the concentration camps in the Third Reich?
The name has changed. They were known as Holerith in those days.
There's a lot more to the story than what has been written in this thread, but I'm not being picky. Potted history is usually brief, succinct, tongue-in-cheek and entertaining. You did a good job and I liked it
But as with all history, it's written from the perspective of the author, from what they weigh as being the important bits. You and I were in different places and saw different bits
I have DOS 7, Warp 3, Warp 4, EcomSystem 1.0, Win 3.0, Win 3.1, Win 3.11 still in boxes gathering dust too lol
Richard in Adelaide
[i]Have you noticed editing is always needed for the inevitable typos that weren't there when you hit the "post" button?[/i]
[img]http://micro-hard.dreamhosters.com/416434.png[/img]
[img]http://micro-hard.dreamhosters.com/416434.png[/img]
i wanna set something straight, no one stole the gui from apple lisa. gates attended a meeting with xerox, whose palo alto labs had a gui predating lisa and windows. gates ran home and started putting all the gui ducks in a row, but first he stopped by apple.
of course, back then ibm and ms worked on a number of things together, not the least of them dos, and ibmdos is the ibm fork of that joint project, now "unique" but from the same root- i hear winnt/xp was the ms-portion of the ms+ibm cooperation on os/2 (and os/2 was the good parts- imo)
"windows" was going to be ms+apple... but apple scoffed at the idea when gates presented it to them (and then proceded to run off and put lisa on the market)
so ms was practically invited to (inevitably) "steal" the idea from xerox (no idea what they thought of windows when it came out, but it started with that meeting) and lisa, while coming out first, was certainly not the inspiration for windows- period. http://toastytech.com for more information, or wikipedia, or whatever.
( edit: as i try to check the links i give people, i'm sad to annouce that it appears that after many years of being useful, the toastytech site- a site rich with gui and os history- appears to have been down since about may. i know i was there earlier this year. so instead:
edit edit: despite being listed on the "ghostsites" site since may, and despite not being able to see it, my friend says he can access the toastytech site, so if i mention it again, just ignore me - your guess is as good as mine... )
no matter who i talk to, this is essentially the version i get. if you have a different version, i'd be happy to hear it. the above website is a bit silly, but has lots of valuable stuff too. i bet many of you have seen it. it has screenshots of the palo alto gui, among many others.
i've seen one of those mechanical hollerith machines- at the holocaust museum in washington dc. everytime a software product refuses to work before putting something in a database, i think of it. oh sure, a bit dramatic.
anyway, this is my first post here, but i've been using this forum for days to find information on puppy best distro i've ever seen- i've tried between 5 and 7 or so, including ubuntu. ubuntu is okay, kinda slow on my hardware. puppy is not *just* cool.
i have some questions about it, including a problem i'd love to fix if possible, so i'll see you guys around i hope. thanks to murga for hosting this. it appears to be an amazing forum. oh, and barryk is my personal hero. i'm sure he's used to it by now
i have never had so much fun, or so much success, with linux. been trying for many years to get to that point- made a tiny bit (but record amount, no matter how tiny) of progress with ubuntu... but puppy is just world class.
of course, back then ibm and ms worked on a number of things together, not the least of them dos, and ibmdos is the ibm fork of that joint project, now "unique" but from the same root- i hear winnt/xp was the ms-portion of the ms+ibm cooperation on os/2 (and os/2 was the good parts- imo)
"windows" was going to be ms+apple... but apple scoffed at the idea when gates presented it to them (and then proceded to run off and put lisa on the market)
so ms was practically invited to (inevitably) "steal" the idea from xerox (no idea what they thought of windows when it came out, but it started with that meeting) and lisa, while coming out first, was certainly not the inspiration for windows- period. http://toastytech.com for more information, or wikipedia, or whatever.
( edit: as i try to check the links i give people, i'm sad to annouce that it appears that after many years of being useful, the toastytech site- a site rich with gui and os history- appears to have been down since about may. i know i was there earlier this year. so instead:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARCXerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was a flagship research division of the Xerox Corporation, based in Palo Alto, California, USA. It was founded in 1970, and spun out as a separate company (still wholly owned by Xerox) in 2002. It is best known for essentially creating the modern personal computer graphical user interface (GUI) paradigm.
edit edit: despite being listed on the "ghostsites" site since may, and despite not being able to see it, my friend says he can access the toastytech site, so if i mention it again, just ignore me - your guess is as good as mine... )
no matter who i talk to, this is essentially the version i get. if you have a different version, i'd be happy to hear it. the above website is a bit silly, but has lots of valuable stuff too. i bet many of you have seen it. it has screenshots of the palo alto gui, among many others.
i've seen one of those mechanical hollerith machines- at the holocaust museum in washington dc. everytime a software product refuses to work before putting something in a database, i think of it. oh sure, a bit dramatic.
anyway, this is my first post here, but i've been using this forum for days to find information on puppy
best distro i've ever seen- i've tried between 5 and 7 or so, including ubuntu. ubuntu is okay, kinda slow on my hardware. puppy is not *just* cool.i have some questions about it, including a problem i'd love to fix if possible, so i'll see you guys around i hope. thanks to murga for hosting this. it appears to be an amazing forum. oh, and barryk is my personal hero. i'm sure he's used to it by now
i have never had so much fun, or so much success, with linux. been trying for many years to get to that point- made a tiny bit (but record amount, no matter how tiny) of progress with ubuntu... but puppy is just world class.