!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Thu Apr 6 11:08:30 2000

----- Original Message -----
From: <healyzh_at_aracnet.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!

> > I really can't understand what all the hostility toward Microsoft is
> > If it weren't for the low prices resulting from the economy of scale,
> > which is enabled by the fact that Microsoft made computers simple enough
> > use that the masses could and would use them.
> Well, in my case it started when I discovered that the copy of Visual
> I bought wouldn't run under OS/2. This is DESPITE the fact that the box
> manuals said it would!
That's something one would have to take up with the vendors of OS/2, right?
> Then there is the issue of *stability*.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. This particular system ( the one I use
for my email, etc) has been "up" without a hitch for three years without a
problem. I've never seen reason to cuss it. The key is that I don't try to
make it do stuff for which it wasn't intended.

The folks I see having problems with their MS-OS-based systems generally are
the ones that (1) hand around the "chat" rooms (where their computers get
"social diseases"), (2) try to squeeze more performance out of their
computers by violating the components' specifications, (3) try to get their
computers to do other sorts of things for which they (or their software)
weren't intended. Now, that's not to say it doesn't happen otherwise, but
from where I sit, that's what I see.
> Then there is the issue of *illegal* business practices.
Frankly, there's still room for doubt. It will be impossible to prove, of
course, but that's because the means with which to detect these practices
came about because of the evolution of the means with which to detect them.
If there's really illegal activity, they'll get what they deserve, whoever
"they" are.
> Then there is that question of innovation.
Having been involved with computers since the '60's I'd say this is a given.
Nothing has been host to more innovation than the microcomputer business.
Now, I don't know what you're pointing out, but if you know of anyone who's
bringing more innovation to the masses, you could tell me about it.
> Someone mind explaining why if I install software on a Microsoft system or
> make *very* minor changes I've got the reboot the _at_*& #$)@ thing?!?!
I've never wanted to become an expert on *NIX and its kin, but IIRC, if you
make any changes to the system you not only have to restart the system, you
have to recompile several modules, including, in some cases, the kernel. I
remember attaching a serial I/O card to a LINUX box once, wherein I had to
recompile (*GETTY) and restart several times. Adding a port to windows
normally didn't require a last time I did it. Of course, it is sometimes
necessary to restart the system if you have to add hardware, since nobody
recommends doing that without first shutting off the power.
> I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
> > If you want to dog somebody, the go after DEC, (God be thanked that
> > gone!) with their antiquated technology always a generation behind
> > else and with their ridiculous prices.
> Um, you do know that's flame bait in this group, and Microslop roasting is
> regular hobby here? Personally I'll willingly pay more if it means I've
> stability.
Well, the cost differential was larger than the cost of the PC machines I
used to demonstrate what a poor choice the uVAXII was as a platform during
my last stint in the aerospace industry. THE JPL guys liked the uVAX-II so
they used it to replace the Apple-][ that was originally designed into a
military-oriented project. I wouldn't argue that the uVAX-II didn't do
better than the Apple-][, but their ESDI interface didn't outperform SCSI,
which they claimed it did, and the high-res graphics cards we were told to
use in the uVax-II cost as much as the entire uVAX-II with all the other
peripherals. A comparable card from the same vendor but designed for the
PC/AT cost only $600.

Not all cases are so extreme, but it's the extremes that tend to be
remembered. It's also no surprise that DEC seems to have gone out of their
way, during the early days of widespread internet use (1985-1988). to make
their LAN boards incompatible with anyone else's. They also tweaked their
protocols to weaken their own networking system so people wouldn't be
tempted to mix and match.
> > The only point I've seen in this thread that makes any sense at all is
> > one about Visual Basic. If your really want that 6-7 figure income,
> > learn it. I know at least half a dozen fellows who have taken that up.
> You know, I can't decide if that's a sad comment on the computer industry,
> or the United States.
I guess it just says that when there's a tool that gets the job done, it
makes sense to learn how to use it as opposed to sticking one's nose in the
air because it seems too "unsophisticated". What's more, people pay for the
process of getting the job done. They don't want to pay for doing it the
"hard" way.
> Zane
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 11:08:30 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:39 BST