[vallor]

Wintard wrote:


"And I repeat that
Windows can do absolutely ANYTHING that any other OS can, except
perhaps for real-time. That even Unix (and any derivative) can't touch
either. Because the kernel is sooo bloated!"





That looks an awful lot alike more FUD to me! See my previous post about Winderz constantly playing catch-up with the real leaders in the field of what is now getting tagged as "cloud computing".





I'll start a thread regarding this in "general", just as soon as I take care of some business.


Thanks,


-vallor

[TechieXP]

Yes I agree with you and maybe I am being a little ruff. But people may not know what a ghz is...or what a mb is...or what gb is. But they do know 2.0 is bigger than 1.5 or 1.0..right? 800 is bigger than 533....2 of whatever is smaller than 4 of whatever. $100 is bigger than $1.

Even tho we put Best Buy down...Best Buy is good for this.... comparison shopping. I am aware many people are not computer literate, but that is no excuse to not know simple terms. Even if you feel they have an excuse. How hard is it to compare the following...just like in the MSFT commercial...wow lets see...this Mac has 2Gb of ram and this Dell has 4Gb. Well I don't know what ram is but 4 is certainly bigger than 2, so this one much me better. Same for CPU speed, same for drive space.

I am sorry...I agree with what you said as being factual in nature...but I don't buy the argument. People become well knowledgeable on thing they WANT TO KNOW. They can tell you more about a life of an actor or actress that will do them no bit of good, but can?t tell you anything about a computer which is something thy will spend a lot of money on. That is simply stupid. And I am sorry I am being ruff...but I am not one to sugar cost life. There are 7 year old kids that can tell you more about a computer than many adults can. That is ass-backwards. Knowledge is power and if you educate yourself even the smartest crook won't get over on you. Even if that crook is perceived to be MSFT.

I am not letting MSFT off the hook. I am in agreement with many that the vista release certainly didn't go well. However it was no worse than XP. When Windows 2000 was released, it was jumped on by users who were not professional in nature. Which force MSFT to deliver XP to offer better backwards compatibility. However it broke everything before MSFT fixed it. However those who did just 30 mins of research saved themselves from a lot of pain. If you get past the fault of MSFTY on Vista, them comes the developers of software/drivers. Hardware designed to run Vista was avail to all...however vendors are looking to make a fast buck too not just MSFT. And if MSFT says this is the bare minimum they will scale their hardware to me that demand. Which means they are at fault too. Then comes the software, which it is beyond me why in 5 years they couldn't have a fair amount of drivers for their own hardware...then lastly its buyer responsibility. At Best Buy and other stores you can stand there as long as you want and play with a machine to find one that suits you. The lower the price the lower the ability of the device. This applies to ALL electronic devices. A phone that cost $25 isn't going to outperform a $200 one...PERIOD. It doesn't matter who make it. A car costing $15K isn't going to be 100% better than one cost 5x ore...it ay be better in some respects...but not all around. Computers are no different. People got burned bec they are stupid. I don't mean that in a mean way...the Internet is filled with sites that explain computer parts using 6th grade English that even a grade school dropout can get a measure of understanding. Again as I said stupid may be a strong word but I am not going to sugarcoat. To not know something in this day and age through all the mediums avail is to simply be stupid. MSFT provides tools that make upgrading as easy as it possibly can be. If you don't use them...whose fault is that? Its like an idiots using a screwdriver as if it is a hammer...sure in can work...but it wasn't designed for that.

There are people who you can give step by step instructs too who will still screw that up too.

MSFT has also said time and time again since the release of Windows 98SE. if you have a computer that works for you and it isn?t broke...stay with what you have. The best way to experience a new OS is to buy the hardware with a new OS. This would be especially true of that hardware is 10 years old or close to it. Even if MSFT did give in to Intel...even if vendors released Vista on sub par hardware if people would have just read a few website they would have known better to buy it. Some people simply don't have good God given common sense...its hard fact to swallow and time and time again these same people continue to blame MSFT bec they don't have the capacity to learn from either MSFT's past mistakes or their own.

I am willing to give anyone befit of the doubt and that we all can make mistakes...but after 40 years or 20 years of you can't learn by now you simply never will. MSFT has over 1 billion know legal users of Windows. Not all of us are having problems...its generally the same 20% or less who have the same problems no matter what release of Windows appears. That simply means the problem is on your end, but it is easy to simply push the blame. The Devil did it, Adam did it...everyone does it. I think it is sad and I pity them all.

I didn't go to school to learn nothing on this level. I don't have a degree...I am not A+ certified and I a not MCSE certified either. Yet I work as a level 1 IT Tech Support person everyday making a fair salary. I perform system hardware and software upgrades...I am one of 3 technicians with a company that has 30 users. I help build a phone system that we own and I provide desktop support for 25 users. The other 2 techs solely work on other things phone related and help me when things are beyond my knowledge..., which is a very short list.

Do it as a living only gives me a small advantage. I agree that many users won't even explore a pc on that level...however they can learn enough to make buying the proper hardware better for them. Yes I too know that you can spend a lot of money and still get a lemon...it happens...but it is ore rare as you climb the ladder of expense. if you only send $500 for a computer you are just doomed to fail when you should have purchased a $800 one.

As you stated, MSFT has made using a computer easier than any company ever has. However as easy as it is, some people still have problems...why? The biggest reason is they don't read. I have to admit I don't like reading that stuff sometimes either...however some things simply can't be taught to u in a book. You simply have to learn by touch r trial and error...but how many errors do u need to have be4 u get it right?

Vista is nowhere near as bad as ME was...in fact I wouldn't compare it to any OS in the 9x family. NT is a whole different breed. It is a very successful build having more users as a whole then all of Windows 9x combined. And NT works when you have better hardware...even if you took 9x and ran it on today?s hardware it would be riddle with the same problems. It is simply a bad family...NT is not. NT is also not forgiving when you use cheesy hardware...something vendors and IT ppl should know from experience. This is why a Business Workstation costs more than a typical consumer desktop...it has better more expensive hardware for a reason. And if you take great software no matter who makes it and glue it to cheap ass hardware you will have problems. If no one has learned that in 40 years, sucks for them. I learned it in less than 10 just teaching myself.

Survival. If you can?t spend time learning about things that will ensure you have a good understand of how to buy things that have a degree of difficulty to it?maybe they shouldn?t be buying it?even if they need it. Geez?end with sex being so prevalent, there are still adults who can?t even explain it properly to their kids?

You?re willing to give them a reprieve?I?m not. Buy I do agree with what you said as fact.

[TechieXP]

I agree with you and maybe I am one who when a problem is describe as about eth underlying hardware.
As you stated, I too know of users who bought Vista and was suing hardware that far exceeded Vista needs and they still had problems. Many had problems with just firing up the barnd new box, some had problems only after installing programs certaified to work in Vista.

However these are more few far bewteen vs those who tried to run Vista on cheap hardware. I dont think everyone is stupid and that si not what I want to simply...

However from what we have seen of some articles in the recent past...there is no other possible answer. After removing all possible scenarios...the one left no matter how distasteful is the answer.



Ther are some very computer literate users here who have also had problems. Most IT people will tell u out of 10 problems more than 1/2 are user created. However knowing how to use a computer goes beyond just knowing meanings to terms. And gain I have seen many users computers and know why many have problems. One guy heer said he ade sure he used teh baress of software and yet he still had problems with Vista. Even tho I ca't see how, it doesn't mean it is not one of teh exceptional few. He is certainly not alone.

[TBolt]

@ WinTard (he chose the name, not me)

"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere,
someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over
there on fire, but I’m just not close enough to get the job done.'” -- George Carlin



At least my quote was funnier. :^0

[TechieXP]

Ypu said you don't see why a person that knows Linux would get paid more than just a typical MCSE certfied tech?

Let skip over the increases in wages due to the fact you get rasies over time. Lets skip the fcat that salaries have increased over the years.

Let simply use a person who has a depth of knowledge and ur asking why they should get paid more.

HJere is a fcat based my own experience. Recently I attended a computer class. The teacher asked for all of us to install Windows Server 2003...implement IIS and Active Directory and to get a mocked up website running and then the next day we were asked to do the same thing with Linux. I was excluded from both tests bec I already had this experience. We had 35 people in this class. When it cmae to Windows out of 35...less then 10 were unsuccessful having no previous experience. For Linux? Only 12 people has a measure of success with implementing similar features.

The instructeor then explained why knowing Linux is important and why it is included now when you are testing for thr A+. It is also PROVEN that a NCSE CErtfied tech who is also a Linux Guru will make more money then a typical standard MCSE Certified Technician.

Base on this...an MSCA Tech can make about 25k as a new graduate...an MCSE Certified Tech will make on average about 52k...and MCSE Certified tech woth Linux Certfication of experemce will make at least 80K or better...in fact they hover on average arounf close to 84k...depending on what market they are living in.

I a also very well aware that Linux is a Unix based OS and that Unix predates Windows and several other Nix and non-nix OS's...howver Linux that we are all familar with started by Mr Torvolds was started in the very eary 90's...like 91 or 92...so I simply picked a round number..however based on that Linux itself is less than 20 years old...and its only been in the last 10 years that Linux has really been usable by and average computer user. Suse and andrake were teh ones I liked most, but Unbuntu is certainly a bit more friendly. However if you need to use Linux on a more higher level you get more money. As a level one technician my salary started at 37k...now that I have learned Linux and have implement CentOS to run our PBX phone system...I now make just over $50k jsut for that. So the proof im my own experience that Linux technicians make more money...if I was certified i'd be making close to double bec Linux rechs are more sought after and more rare. Almost anyone can become A+ certified...just like anyone can go to school and get a PH'd or even have an MD. But it takes someone special to be a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon. They are more hard to find and demand high pay for what they do.

Example...I was on the IT staff at a hospital in florida...A heart surgeon that works maybe to days a week makes about $150K to perform what they would consider a simple heart based surgery...open heart surgery demands 250k for one surgery. Its supply vs demand. There is a huge demand of Linux techs and there simply isn't enough. Most schools have sme sort of MSCA or MCSE or A+ certification class.

As far as the other stuff. I am all for any company changing to something other than MSFT sofwtare to run their business if they can. Most can't right now..one day that will certainly be different. I am certainly not trying to protect MSFT. BUt several businesses said as a fact...they woild certainly like to impleent Linux, but cost prevent them...bec teh initial cost is staggering.

[vallor]

The thread is here: http://forums.pcworld.com/thread/59929

[quackadilly]

" Nope. Just saying that if a 'majority' thinks something is 'better', it does not necessarily make it so.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
1% = 10,000,000 users. Even for TV 10,000,000 users is a hit.
So Microsoft has a majority? There are more flies than people, too. They must be better than people?"
-----
Ok....10,000,000 user is pretty good...... but 89% = 890,000,000.....that is a hell of a lot bigger.....



Your logic astounds me..... first you have to define "better". Is it based on what the consumer needs? Or is it based off of what a small group of people say is "technically superior"......

Since this is the business of selling a product to a consumer, I'd go with what satisfies the consumer. THAT is what will make you money. McLaren has a far superior car than Toyota.....that didn't stop Toyota from being the market leader and making money hand over fist.





You're comparing humans to flies? Flies eat poo...... I don't eat poo...... It doesn't smell good, why would I eat it? Again....your logic.....so amazing.....ly wrong.

[rasmasyean]

It's not even 1% of computer users. It measures "internet traffic".
It's more likely that there are less Windows on the internet per on-time because work computers don't surf as much. And couple that with Linux computers having a relative scarcity of good apps makes Linux desktops primarily an internet machine.
Even the statistics agencies say that Macs get a spike during holiday season because lots of people are home and use home Macs on the internet shopping and such. And this spike goes back down in the turn of the year.

[TechieXP]

yea...that an expensive laptop at the $1500 or above....

[TechieXP]

I too bought Vista because I wanted to have the latest OS. I preferred the looks of Vista over XP. I've used every version of Windows both client and server since Windows 3.1 and NT 3.51.

I certainly didn't need Vista at all. I certainly don't need Windows 7 either...but I basically want it for the same reasons. If a person choose to upgrade for whatever reason...the reality of it is things will go wrong and they won't be perfect. However, MSFT does do a list of hardware on there site that list every vendor hardware that Vista has been tested to work with a problem. In many cases, the drivers for those devices are released on the RTM disk. Typically MSFT doesn't do drivers for many wifi cards bec many have dual usage...MSFT writes drivers that support the basic function of the device. If you need full device support then you have to use the MFR's driver/software. This is usually where the problems comes in.

Sometimes even I get puzzled as too how 2 people with an identical system...one will ahve major problems and the other person will not. Its not always MSFT fault yet everyone blames them...its not alls the hardware mfr's fault either. Sometimes its just that way, Simple rule is if its working now you risk breaking it when you make changes. Yes you should be able to change when you want too, but it may not be a good idea to do so. Unless you have teh knowledge and patients to deal with something going wrong.

In my case I always do a clean install. I didn't get a chance to beta test 7...and I ran into a snag when installing the release candidate. But it turned out some files didn't get burned properly and to get a perfect disk I had to lower the recording speed. After that it was all good.

All I see is people saying MSFT needs to do this or that and in many cases they already have. What comes next is what about what we as a consumer should do. Then you have teh others who say just jump to another platform. I can speak from experience that upgrading or install Linux or OSX can be just as problematic as Windows. In fact they are worse. When it comes to hardware compatibility Windows is certainly more open then those have ever been or ever will be for a while.

I like you think Vista is pretty awesome. For those who had problems I am betting I could solve most of them and have done so. There hasn't been a system running Vista that I have repaired when I work at a shop on Saturday. The problems on average stem from the same things...insifficient hardware is always number 1, installations of repeat programs that cause trouble for other programs..example...one computer I worked on had 3 security suites installed...and lastly...someone trying to run a newer OS on hardware that simply wasn't designed to do so in the first place. Anything outside of that was minor and simply required making sure teh software has the proper settings.

[TechieXP]

In early 2008 you bought two HP machines and could not get Vista to install? In 2008, Vista would have been pre-installed before they left the factory.
Interesting.

I ran into some similar problems using Asus boards with some graphics. U se teh P5K Deluxe Wifi which uses the P35 chipset. I too had issues using Diamond version of ATI cards. I had to x1650 Pro which implement Crossfire using the software as these cards don't have the bridge connectors. They simply never worked. So I sold them and purchased the Sapphire versions. Problem solved. I've recently moved up to teh 4670's bec for my board using the bride is better bec the P35 has one PCIe that is x16 and the other is x4. Its flawless.

Companys like ATI and Sapphire have a compatibility list that tells u what boards their cards work on.

[TechieXP]

Yes I remember those ol modemblaster. I actually liked them back in the Windows 98 days. So this is probably why you're having some problems. Creative devices are all legacy based. A legacy device. Windows XP was teh only OS I know of that would install Creative hardware natively. Those devoces also came with software that allowed them to be used in DOS mode in Windows 9x.

I a surprised that you have it working in Vista. One thing I did in Windows 98, was instead if installing Creative version of teh driver...I found a generic driver that supports those chips. The modemblaster uses the Conexant chipsets if I remember correctly. On teh largest chip on the board there is a number. And card that use the chips from that number can use a driver made by any mfr...not just creative. I am a mamer of driversguide.com which is free. You could most likely find a driver that will work better.

Here is a lil hint for you. Windows Vista can use Windows XP drivers in certain cases. Windows XP using WDM and Vista uses WDDM which is basically an updated version of what XP used. If you download a driver package don't use th enative installer bec it will mostly be 16bit in nature and will fail. Just extract the package...remove the present driver from Vista and let Vista search the driver folder. If it is able to use the INF that is found it will install the additional files. It will take some trial to find one it will accept. That is why I said pull the card and look at the biggest chip and get the numbers off of it. The Conexant based modems have several chipset families that are identified by a certain nuber. Several MFR's in a givien year will use the same chips...and simply make there own card. But there is always a single generic drive from the MFR of the chips that will work on all of them. I am willing to bet it will solve your problem.

Sorry for being off topic.

And I apologize if I put to much wind in your sails, That wasn't the intent at all. :-)

[vallor]

Techiexp wrote:
"Then you have teh others who say just jump to another platform. I can speak from experience that upgrading or install Linux or OSX can be just as problematic as Windows. In fact they are worse."


Pure FUD. Stick to Vista, pal, because so far, everything you've said about Linux is crap. (And wrong.)

I used preupgrade on this system going from F10 -> F11 -- no problems.

I used the netboot iso on my lappy, upgraded from F10 -> F11 -- no problems.

At the office, I did a straight up fresh install. No problems.

And this thread is NOT the place to discuss Linux, either damning it or praising it. Go here: forums.pcworld.com/thread/59929|t-59929

Because your ideas about Linux seem to be from 5 years ago...which is somewhat near the level that Windows Vista 7 is trying to play catch-up with.

[http://forums.pcworld.com/thread/59929|t-59929]

Cheers!

[TechieXP]

I do agree with EvilDave in the meaning of numbers. Numbers can be both benficial whether big or small. It is obvious that more zeros behind the 1 in your paycheck is certain great. But a million flies in your house would be counted as a disaster.

We have already proven that bigger numbers aren't always better in all cases. Example..many cars cost most...yet suck compared to ones that cost less.

But lets pick this one and see if Daves rants stands up.

When it comes to software development...the better the option the more people will buy it. MSFT drive is obviously money just as any other company is. One way I know a softare is better, is I can find it on the shelf at the store. When a software isn't popular or all that good you may only find it in one place...mostly online. But the vast majority of shoppers still shop the old fashion way. They crank up the car and drive. Many softwares that people claim are so great aren;t find at your local technology retail outlet. Why? It doesn't mean they are bad, it simply means either they are not the best...or simply not for the general public.

MSFT intent with WIndows was to provide a paltform that provide teh same benfits as teh ac, at a lower cost margin. They succeeded so Windows is better in this reguard.

Apple's platforms makes it hard for deveopers to make crappy software, which is found to be easier on Windows. At this, apple surely succeeds. Since everything avail for Linux is free, there is simply no gauge to really use as to what is good or bad accept it is much eaier to find out by simply downloading the and trying them and learning for yourself. In this reguard Linux exceeds.

But now the numbers certainly come into play. Since Apple drop a GUI based OS on the public first and it was perceiived as the best offering how did Windows blow by it so easily? And since Linux is free this would certainly be a driving force behind growing numbers. Yet it is not. If you think of things thing that are very popular and free in technology...Linux is behind ALL of them. Imagine how many iPhone APple could get rid of if they decided to give them away for free.

In the case of MSFT...if we subtracted the following...lets subtract everyone that simply uses Windows bec they have to. Now lets subtract everyone who use Windows that actually don't like it. Now lets subtract those people who simply don't want to use Windows at all. Those numbers would still be millions of times bigger than OSX usage and off the scale compate to Linux usage. So that would then mean...since we have eliminated the obvious...that means all that is left is ppl who actually like Windows so thus it must be better. And then if you add the rest that use it...bec it is simply teh better option.

When it comes to marketshare we all know those numbers can change almost instantly. However when a product market virtually remains unchanged for several decades then the numbers aren't just stats, or lies or creative misconceptions...they are simply what they are...not what you make them to be.

Bigger numbers don't always mean better...it depends on the usage.


We all knwo the history..we all know MSFT simply got lucky bec when other computer mfr's appeared they had no option other than MSFT. But that is Apple's fault. That cause the prblem and thus they niched their own self. I don't think Unix was meant to be use as a standard desktop option...Linux is trying to make it have that option. I think Unix was meant to be used based on its original intent. OSX and Windows were designed fro the beginning to be desktop oriented and easy for teh general public to use. If Apple was smart they could have been the only option.

But just bec MSFT offered a option...doesn't mean they all had to grab on.
Yes just bec tthe majority thinks somrthing is better doesn't mean it is.
But the majority does seem to pick what works best...
Bec I can surely think of groups that jhold a majority in numbers, but certainly are not teh best offering and vice versa.

[GetReal]

I seem to hit some skepticism when stating my new HP computer did not arrive totally preloaded with Vista-? Also note, in my self-assembled PC, I initially started with an ATI card, only after I changed to Diamond (with different drivers?) did my major problem clear. I could probably have found better on the internet, but my town only has two computer outlets (few choices) and by that time I was so angry I just wanted a working computer, ASAP.


TechieXP your posts are interesting reading, usually correct as far as they go, but often miss info that might skew things a bit off of what you state.

Example with this post about numbers: It is well documented that in DOS & early Windows days, MS/Bill-G seriously & actively declared war against most competition for the computer desktop. Offering major price cuts coupled with exclusionary marketing contracts (aka, intimidation) to system manufacturers around the world. Effectively eventually killing CP/M, DRDos, Netware, etc., etc., efforts at producing a viable OS. Having then succeeded, MS effectively became a monopoly (all this was aided by IBM & Compaq, who had the public popular name and also set the hardware standards >>> thus removing Apple & possibly others from effective lifetime competition with them). I think without this underhanded activity MS would today still be the dominant software provider >>> but would not have such a hugh percent of the market (many might claim this was not underhanded, just normal business activity, if so, remember that the DOJ had him nailed down for this but when Clinton was elected much of the legal activity was quickly dropped --- also documented).













One way of looking at MS efforts in the 70's & early 80's, I clearly remember the days of personal computers where each manufacturer sold systems with proprietary non-compatable OS and general software >>> a nightmare for users, because no person understood very much about what they were actually getting involved in or even what software was needed for a specific task (aka, marketing hype & lack of any training). However, I don't think this result played any part in Gates decisions or actions at the time. So jump to the present moment >>> MS OS offerings are not always so great but usually work, on a variety of systems and apparantly satisfy a majority of users, and, made Bill utterly rich. What might we have had otherwise, a continued mess of incompatability for sure, as presently so, but possibly good things. I hope eventually users will became more knowledgable, programmers more responsive and the market would support the better offerings and give real choice for buyers. Wishfull thinking?

;)

[cirhodes]

Who realy cares if we have to pay for Windows 7 even though it is basicaly an upgraded Vista, REAL people will still buy it because what are the alternatives if you want to change or upgrade your OS? OSX? Leopard is as much of a dog as vista is if not worse (snow leopard promises to be better though), and all you linux guys... yeah good luck with that!

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been (based on the RC version)it seems finished, im pleased they are offering the upgrade at a cheap price but i would be realy pleased if it stayed that way :)

Yeah Microsoft is Rich i dont blame or bag people (or companies) for doing well, the reason isnt that they are evil its because there software (generaly) actualy works (ignore ME and Vista pre SP's I'll concede these especialy ME sucked a$$)
Anyway thats my 5c like it or lump it i dont realy care.

[rgreen4]

GetReal said:

Example with this post about numbers: It is well documented that in DOS & early Windows days, MS/Bill-G seriously & actively declared war against most competition for the computer desktop. Offering major price cuts coupled with exclusionary marketing contracts (aka, intimidation) to system manufacturers around the world. Effectively eventually killing CP/M, DRDos, Netware, etc., etc., efforts at producing a viable OS.

A little historical correction. CP/M was the defacto operating system for the Micro Computers using the Zilog Z-80 chip and as such was limited to MAX Memory of 64K. Into this market in July, 1977 came the Apple II with a different processor (MOS Tech 6502) and running with Basic as the OS. A little over 4 years later (August, 1981) came the IBM PC.

IBM first tried to enlist Digital Research to port the CP/M into a viable OS for their new PC, but DR wasn't interested. Instead that contract with the per unit royalty went to Microsoft which had possibly 4 or 5 employees at the time and one main product - Basic. The Apple had a closed architecture (still does), and DR gambled on the existing Micro Computer market with CP/M, and lost. It's been well documented that IBM approached DR first when developing the PC, but DR basically was not interested. IBM with the open architecture and it's connections with the business world took off and took three companies with them. Microsoft, Lotus and WordPerfect.

GetReal said:

Having then succeeded, MS effectively became a monopoly (all this was aided by IBM & Compaq, who had the public popular name and also set the hardware standards >>> thus removing Apple & possibly others from effective lifetime competition with them). I think without this underhanded activity MS would today still be the dominant software provider >>> but would not have such a hugh percent of the market (many might claim this was not underhanded, just normal business activity, if so, remember that the DOJ had him nailed down for this but when Clinton was elected much of the legal activity was quickly dropped --- also documented).

IBM and Compaq didn't set any standards. IBM when it developed the 5150 (know as the PC), in the interest of time used industry standard off the shelf parts. The electrical components on the board were standard, the buss connections (later referred to as ISA slots) were standard 8 bit connections found in many other machines. The floppy drives were standard. The only non-standard part that was IBM patented was the BIOS, at that time called the Bootstrap and two programs on the OS disk, IBMIO.SYS and IBMDOS.SYS. The other manufacturers had to engineer around that and once they did, the world of the compatibles was born. They called the files MSIO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS, and was used on every PC compatible except the Compaq, which apparently had a license from IBM because the Compaq DOS discs all had IBMIO.SYS and IBMDOS.SYS.

There was nothing assured about the market success of the original IBM 5150, but within a year, the had writing was on the wall. CP/M was out, DOS was in, and the closed architecture machine was still in a minority position. Incidentially, the actions against Microsoft were because of their actions regarding Internet Explorer, not Windows. If MS had charged for IE, there would have been no case, but they gave it away on the Windows disc.

Incidentally, the IBM PC was the only one that charged for the Operating System, and you had your choice of two. PC-DOS and DR's CP/M. Since CP/M was significantly more expensive that PC-DOS, most chose it. After a few years, CP/M was dead, and DR came out with DR-DOS to compete with MS-DOS, but since most manufacturers (again excluding IBM) were including MS-DOS with their machine, why then pay for DR-DOS?

And the case was not dropped, but settled between the DOJ and Microsoft.

[ke4nhw]

rgreen4 >> Thanks for a post filled with facts, not rants. Now I'd like to build on what you've said from that time to present, and introduce the issue that made Vista such as headache.

At the time of the creation of MSDOS, the GUI was still a wishful concept. Everything, DOS, Apple, Unix, everything, was still command line based. This coupled with the fact that the systems didn't have convenient tools to just display information to users, required the user to have a bit of knowledge about his/her hardware. This didn't necessarily mean they needed to know the data flow across the motherboard and the active and idle current drains of chips, but certainly they needed to know what speed chip they had, their onboard memory, and at their public introduction, their hard drive specs. Therefore those of us who started as little whips on those computers obviously gained a level of computer knowledge that while at the time was most likely basic need to run the computers of that day, is perhaps slightly above the baseline knowledge of the average user of today, whose computer use began in the days of interactive GUI's and automated setup procedures.

This created as much good as bad. The good is it challenged users to learn and know computers, and, in cases similar to my own, inticed users to "play" with their systems, learn more and more about the inner workings, and grow in this knowledge. Downside, not everyone at that time was tech-savvy. You had some of the younger generation who just didn't care and preferred for their parents to start up the machine and their favorite game, and others who felt they couldn't absorb that level of knowledge at that stage of life for whatever reason. Couple this with the fact that computers, while still somewhat complicated, were pricy, and seen more as either luxury or a business tool, with very little application otherwise.

Microsoft saw this trend, and the vast number of people who were being excluded, by technology or themselves, from the coming electronic age. This kindled a fire with MS, and from those ashes came one of the first (maybe not the FIRST, I remember GeoWorks predating win 3 and Tandy having a rudimentary GUI) Graphical User Interfaces. At this stage it was very little more than a shell, but this shell provided users with the ability to click on something to run it, get information about the computer in easier to read, user friendly formats, and opened a whole new platform on which new applications, such as the calculator up to spreadsheets, could be programmed. Computers just became easier for the masses, and the masses responded. Slowly. Computers were still pricy and not seen as near necessity they are today. Especially since the wired world we know today didn't exist then.

With this MS continued to develop Windows, making easier and friendlier, and making sure it "kept up with the Jones' " as much as possible. As hardware got better, so did Windows. As the Internet became available to the masses through your ISP, Windows made sure it had an out of box way for users to browse the internet and all its glory. Innovation after innovation was always followed by Windows responding with a new tool, gadget, or package designed to do one thing: Open the doors of this innovation to the masses.

It worked. Computers have become a household standard, and quite nearly a necessity. Microsoft succeeded in its mission, to make the computer friendlier and easier to use for those who couldn't understand tech talk stuff. As a result, there are at least as many if not slightly more people out there who don't have a grasp on ram and mhz and gb and mb and hd and the like as your or I have. Microsoft invited these people into the party, shouldn't they serve snacks and such that these people can eat as well?

Now to today. Go grab a shrinkwrap Vista or version of your choice. Read the Minimum System Requirements. Those out there who know computers answer this. Are those requirements really a realistic set of numbers, that users can depend on? No. Those numbers reflect the base minimum for the system to boot and get to the GUI, maybe run some of the base end apps. Attempt to run bigger programs, media files, or games, and the system starts crawling along at less than a half mile an hour. You and I know this. Does your mom/dad/grandmother/grandfather? Aunt/uncle? Generally no. They depend on numbers being right. They have their computer specs copied down on a piece of paper, head to Best Buy, and compare the specs. If it's equal they should be good. Or worse yet, they grab a shrinkwrap and use it as the "shopper's guide." They'll compare those specs to computers they're getting ready to buy, and if the computer has the dead minimum numbers, and is cheaper than the other one with what they consider "unnecessary frills and bigger just cuz" numbers, they go with the cheapest box they can get, that meets the reqs, and that's that. They didn't do a blindfolded point and pick or a spin the bottle purchase, they compared from the box.

Microsoft designed windows to cater to those who are still learning or just wish to be weekend warriors and surfers. In that, they have a responsibility to those people. They should cater to them, and provide them with realistic information. Realistic numbers based on the average computer users computing needs and wants of today, and make sure that the OS will support not only itself, but a vast array of other programs, with fewer slowdowns and errors. If that means a release is either slightly ahead of its time or geared toward more power user high end systems, then label it as such.

Windows has gotten perpetually bigger partly in thanks to the ever swelling kernel. They are integrating everything into the kernel with hard integration, not modular integration. The GUI, ALL hardware devices the system will natively support, newest technologies (such as using Flash as Ram), all of this in the kernel space at all times. So your kernel is actively supporting a Canon, Lexmark, and a denizen other printers and scanners, even though you are using HP. While this makes plug and play what it is, it makes for a hardware taxing nightmare.

Microsoft, be realistic with the customer base YOU invited to the party. Don't confuse them with barely enough numbers to help generate new computer sales, aftermarket upgrades through OEM's, and revenue due to the onslaught of tech support calls you'll without doubt receive. Tell them up front the real numbers they need to enjoy your product.

Had Vista come with the the Minimum Reqs having been the same as the Recommended and the Recommended put on up toward the power user end, things would have gone far smoother and gained far fewer complaints.

And as far as paying for their mistake? Was it really their mistake? Ours? Whose? Cast blame all day, it'll do no good. Users create as many errors as the OS did. If not more. And the pricetag isn't anything unusual for Windows. It's always been pricey. It's always been expensive. What's new there?

However, someone said you get what you pay for, this is halfway true. Just because Linux distibutions are free, doesn't make them the bottom feeders in quality. Linux is just a different fish in the pond. As is Mac, AlienWare, yadda yadda yadda. So you get what you choose to pay for. You get what you desire to get and use, and you pay what they ask. Each OS has it's place in the masses. Windows is no different. It's got its place well established as the platform to which almost all third party software is written. Which makes for an ease of third party software use and integration. It's easy, click this, click that. click click click click click..... It's got its place. Now it needs to respect the power it has, and not use the lack of knowledge of its userbase to generate greed revenue for itself and others. Be up front and honest. Tell it like it is.

Don't you ask as much from your friends, family, spouse? Why shouldn't you expect it from your OS???

Microsoft isn't the Beast or Antichrist or Lucifer, they're simply making some unwise decisions.

[rasmasyean]

I think you're just looking at a small market (consumer) with what you say. And I think you credit to the wrong people. When you say MS made it "user friendly", it may have been user friendly compared to Unix, but I'd have to go with Apple winning the "user friendliness" award.
However, the reason why Microsoft nearly killed Apple anyway has less to do with consumers than what you believe. It's simply this:
Apple = closed, Windows = open.
What was known as "open architecture" allowed various engineers to compete and innovate with 99.9% interoperability based on the IBM standard. This caused an explosion of power and a reduction in price for computer parts. And everyone made money while MS supplied the sole software that gave these engineers a job. There was OS/2 too but that's long forgotten...and it's no surprise that MS was involved in that anyway.
The ultimate result of the above can be summarize simply like this:
Businesses (the main users of computers) bought into Windows because that was really the only realistic option for desktops. Naturally, this allowed MS to use this advantage to dominate the Productivity Software arena as well...and that FURTHUR make Windows de facto. And because of the widespread office presence and familiarity, consumers bought Windows systems. Then came all the games, software, hardware, etc. because engineers make stuff to sell. And the biggest market is for Windows.
I mean, do you think that Mac's would sell so much if they couldn't run Windows? They would have been dead...and Steve Jobs knew it. Majority of ppl don't care about their "favorite OS". They buy computers to accomplish their task by using "computer stuff" besides the "OS". Though Windows is still not "easier to use" than Macs, it's easy enough and sure as hell blows away Unix.

[TechieXP]

Dude...pls take your head out of teh crack of Steve Jobs crack and grow a brain of your own.
Whether you see somethong as a problem or not, doesn't mean it isn't one.

Example...OSX is NOT compatible with ALL devices sold today. For some that may not be a problem within itself...however for those who want to choose their own hardware; THAT IS A PROBLEM. When you use Windows you can shop blindfolded and pick abosolutely any PC device and you can install it in Windows. Whether it is good or bad hardware isn't the issue. Can you do that for a Mac? NO!

Software - I am happy that since Steve is going to play middleman to any apppresented for the OSX platform...it still squeezes out potential for more great applications for the Mac. Look at the history. Why did the MAc only have limited success? Bec it had NO applications. Businesses preferred to run DOS with all its limitations, then jumping on to the then expensive Mac platform. Windows was a godsend as it was equally as easy to use as a Mac and had a host of applications. Windows 3.1 which is the first version MSFT actually got right, sold more computers than Apple had sold even having a almost 5 year head start. After Windows 95 and NT, most businesses never even considered ever getting Macs. Proof is...how many businesses use Macs. I see businesses that use Macs simply bec they fit in with the decor...not bec they are practical. That fact Macs have limits in software, limits there usage so thus that is a problem. Macs as a standard mostly use productivity software. Graphic rendering, education, msuic and video production and desktop publishing all are productivity tools. They all produce something. What about teh entertainment value? Life is not all work all the time. Why should I have to go buy a second computer to entertain myself. Thus teh cost of Macs are sure not justified I don't care if they were made out of pure gold.

Proof online has shown that Macs with fancier cases break...OFTEN. Screens that blank out, macs that does wake up from sleep, macs that don't power off even when holding down the power button, GSOD...a huge list of incompatible hardware...NEED I SAY MORE? Maybe you should get YOUR facts straights.

For that expense I better not have a problem. I recently bought a Mac Air after Apple drop the price on them. For there very high value vs its limitations the cost is still to high. It isn't worth more than $1000. Sure its then and pretty, but need I say I am soewhat more disappointed then I was at first. I still like it and was aware of many limitations...but I still wanted it. However I did the thing i really didn't want to do. To really get use out of it, I ended up install Windows 7 on it. Apple simply doesn't have all the appz I need. However when I use OSX I use it for the 2 programs I really wanted and for what I do it is sufficient. I have not had any problems...AND I BETTER NOT for the cost.

I agree with Mac fans that Apple does make nice stuff....but the quality is only a measure better. Looks aren't everything.

Here are some links for you...READ THEM:

http://www.neowin.ne...pgrade-problems
http://www.tomsguide...rd-osx-problems,review-1028.html
http://news.cnet.com...0126636-37.html
http://www.zeldman.c...e-at-any-speed/
http://www.google.co...arch?hl=en&q=OSXupgrade+problems

And the list goes on. Even Apple like MSFT recommends install OSX fresh as oppose to upgrading. Why? Bec upgrading one OS to be come another simply is a horrible process that simply can't be perfected...not even by Apple. Try to understand...you are using a CD to make one OS tranform to become another. For the time it takes to upgrade, you can do a full install and be done.

MSFT is light year s ahead of Apple on many levels and a bit behind on others. But we all can live wiuth where MSFT is behind.
Another hiccup in your logic and most Mac fans, if they bese success on the bar Apple has set. What bar? Since Windows is more sucessful then all versions of Mac OS/OSX combined that must mean Apple is a failure...and since Apple has sold more cellphones then all companys accept one, that must mean they are really sucessful and others are failures...right?

How about Linux. Linux is a great OS for behind the seens that is a fact. Where do you primarily see NIX based systems? Last time I checked, I have never walked up to a desktop using Solaris, or UNIX or Linux or any other NIX based OS. They were not designed to be used on a desktop in the first place. That is FACT, not an opinion or FUD. Linux is an attempt to make it more user friendly....still has a way to go and even if it ever gets to be like Windows as far as being usable...it still won't be gravitated by the masses as Windows.

Its like this line from the Incredible....ince everybody is supers...then no one will be. If all OP's at some point simply all become exactly alike, what would be the benefits of have more selection? All cars aren't exactly alike...right? With all thing consider where they match, what sets the apart is each brings a different concept of a similar aspect.

Driver/Hardware support. How many know devices does Linux work with...a very few 1000 at best? You know how popular a platform is buy going to the store and buyinf stuff for it. So lets see...last tie I check...I have yet to see a box that has the penquin on it that supports Linux. I do know there are a few. However the best way to find out if the device you want to use works with Linux...you better Google it first ot you could be highly disappointed. Same with sofwtare...WINE doesn't run WIndows appz as good as Windows...and it isn't compatible with most of them. You have to hack the shit out of them to get lack luster functionality. Do you think a bunch of people who don't know the differece of a GB vs a GHz can ever use Linux? I think not. For anyone who thonks they can, is really not thinking clearly and needs to lay off the drugs.

I have used the following versions of Linux both at hoe and at work. Suse, Mandrake, Ubuntu, CentOS, Mint and RedHat. FOr my person useage...they all work with my hardware with the exceptiog of my GPU's, WIFI...do I want to run ont to simply buy a compatible option? NO. Linux povides no benefit to me anywats so why spend the money? If you don't nead a NIX IS to work in a business space...then Linux isn't ready for mass producttion. Even free it isn't work the headaches it would cause. For a peron who only needs a pc to email, internet, basic offic efunctions...linux is fine.Anything on a professional desktop level? AIN'T HAPPENING. One day maybe it will.

Say whatever you will...ur wrong.

People who know what they are doing will have less problems. Not everyone is tech savvy...so what about them. That is why most people by computers on a retail level...bec they are not savvy as to explore other options. The vast majority of people think installing an OS is harder then install a typical application...however it isn't. But if they run into snags like hardware that doesn't work immediately afterware...most have no idea what to do next. Then what? Just bec it works for u, doesn't mean it works for everyone. Just bec I sledom have problems with Windows or any OS...doesn't mean no one else isn't. I only question the cause which has been proven to be teh user in most cases.