Well . . . just to add a bit of grist for the mill . . . I've got to agree,
Microsoft is not perfect. However, I'm also forced, by grim experience, to
point out that, while Microsoft's products, which were pointed out last week
by one Harvard professor's comments on the progress of the current
(misguided) lawsuit against them by the government, to have both 90+ % of
the operating systems market, and to hold 90+ % of the office software
market as well, they are not all they could be. I have to agree that I like
the Microsoft products, and that's because, unlike the offerings of
yesteryear, including those from Microsoft, the current generation does seem
to work quite adequately to meet my requirements.
Yes, there are features I'd probably appreciate, and there are features
which cause annoyance from time to time, but, all in all, they seem to work.
I'm often puzzled by the complaints about "crashes" under Win9x and NT. My
notebook, running Win95, hasn't crashed, although it's been in almost
constant use since early '97 when I bought it. Now, the machines into which
I routinely stick cards that may or may not work, along with products that
may or may not work, both hardware and software, . . . well, they have had
other histories, but it's seldom Microsoft software that's to blame for
that.
These Microsoft products, notably the Win95 software and its Win98
successor, though not perfect, only cost about $100. The Office software
costs about $400, though counterfeits of both are available for much less.
The cost of the Office software is only a little more than what the
venerable WORDSTAR for CP/M cost back in the '70's, and probably much less
if one takes inflation into account.
Frankly, there's little reason why anyone should complain in view of the
cost, if nothing else. While you can find fault with this Microsoft stuff,
you can't name a single OS that's provided as many of the features that
people want in a form in which they can use it on the personal computer
level. What's more, even CP/M cost more than Win9x.
I've never bought a license for a DEC OS, but I doubt it cost under $100.
There are Linux versions one can buy in ready-to-install form for under
$100, but those will cost $1M, at least, at 50-cents-an-hour before they're
working properly and that's only if you're a real *nix expert. What's more,
NO *nix version offers the features that make the Win9x desirable for home
computer use. There are lots of books out there for *nix users, but I've
yet to see a "{insert vendor name here} Office for Dummies" book for LINUX,
though I hear there is a "LINUX for Dummies" book out there.
The issue of reliability can be argued almost forever, but it does seem to
me that the "reliability" of a given system depends a great deal on how the
system is being used, to wit, the relative stability of my notebook, which
is used for little else than what the OS and Office software support. Of
course I do use it to view document files on CD and to prepare overheads and
other illustrations using an old version of CorelDRAW!.
People have computers for different reasons. If some OS other than what's
offered by Microsoft suits you better, e.g. OS/2, then it's likely that you
should use that instead. If you prefer one of the many UNIX incarnations,
that's your choice as well. However, for the mix of functionality and cost
that the "average" home computer user wants and needs, Microsoft seems to
have been right on the money. Their market share seems to underscore that
point.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <technoid_at_cheta.net>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 11:20 PM
Subject: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'
>
> >Is it truly necessary to fill the list with stuff like "Microsoft is
awful",
> >etc etc etc.?
>
> One of the primary functions of this group is to advance computing
> knowlege by disseminating information hard won through experience with
> machines that 'have been'. I agree that simple admonitions such as
> 'Microsoft sux' are ameture and deserve little attention. I must protest
> however. We know enough by far about various architectures to compare
> them and Microsoft's products clearly do not pass muster. Not to say they
> don't pass the average computer user's tests of ease of use or
> understandability but thier underlying architectures are poorly designed
> and prone to failure.
>
> >I don't see how that is particularly related to classic
> >computers...
>
> These threads have everything to do with Classic computing as we have
> been given the opportunity thereby to view the growth of many environments
> and to compare them at thier various stages of growth.
>
> >Like the "Nuke Redmond" thread, which filled my mailbox with
> >probably 100+ messages which I had no desire at all to even look at. It
is
> >really annoying to check your mail, have about 70-100 messages, and have
> >about 80 or so be pure garbage like that.
>
> Fair enough. I anticipated more flames when I wrote that article than were
> posted. I disagree that the original message and the threaded replies
> were "pure garbage" or even impure garbage. Most of the 'replies' on that
> thread had nothing to do with the original message which pertained to
> Microsoft's disgusting habit of destroying people and companies rather
> than competing decently. You are discussing topics with peers not morons.
> We really know of what we speak.
>
> >Besides, not everyone dislikes Microsoft's products. I for one, like
their products a >lot, I'm using Win 98SE right now, and our NT server has
been running continuously for >about 4 years now, no crashes at all.
>
> I don't believe you have had a four year uptime with NT unless your NT box
> is not connected to a network. At least admit you reboot the machine from
> time to time. The best Uptime I have had on an NT machine is NT4 Terminal
> Server which stayed up for six months without a reboot. I feel NT is a
> qualified server OS but my particular circumstance is an NT machine with
> little network activity. On other larger NT server networks I work on I
> have to reboot the server as often as once per week to maintain decent
> availability. I think it has to do with hash tables NT creates to deal
> with high-demand network activity. My guess is NT does not deallocate the
> ram allocated to these processes which eventually degrades network
> performance to the degree that the admin must 'deallocate' this ram by
> manually rebooting the server at intervals defined by the level of use the
> server receives.
>
> As far as 95/98 is concerned, if you know anything about the underlying
> foundation of an operating system you must admit that 95/98 is a horrible
> kluge. I agree that 98 is much better than 95 in terms of stability but
> neither will ever be a great operating system because thier foundation is
> nonexistent. I liken 9x to an upside-down pyramid based the MSDOS
> interrupt handler.
>
> I could imagine a 9x system being stable despite it's poor foundation if
> that foundation were made of diamond. This would not be an estheticly
> pleaseing operating system but it could be made stable if it's core were
> very strong. My main objection to 9x is that application installs replace
> core components with non-tested ones ( at least in that given
> configuration ). In other words, each Windows machine is unique in it's
> core configuration. This is a dangerous design approach and invites
> nearly infinite opportunities for incompatabilities and general
> instability.
>
> >And I do have experience with other OS's, I
> >also run BeOS on my machine, I also run Solaris, Netware, VMS, RT-11,
OS-32,
> >Infoshare, CP/M, MacOS, UnixWare, and HP-UX. I'd say VMS is my favorite,
> >BeOS is up there, same with UnixWare + Win 98, with Linux, Netware,
>
> Bully for you and I mean that. Experiencing other operating systems is a
> tremendous learning tool. Ease of use is important but more important
> still is stability. My guess - and only a guess is that you have not
> actually run these alternate opertating systems in a production
> environment and so cannot guage thier relative stability.
>
> >MacOS being my all-time least favorites.
>
> Macos is pretty stable but I'd have to agree with you that it's not very
> pretty. It lacks a lot in terms of configurability that I look for in an
> operating system. That opinion does not affect the fact that it has been
> proven stable and users don't have to muck with it to make it work.
>
> >I wouldn't even consider running a
> >Linux machine unless there was money in it for me ;p Anyway, I've now
added
> >some of what I hate, going against the entire message I was saying, but
> >anyway, how about having the list a bit more on topic?
>
> I don't blame you. Linux is not ready for Prime Time on the desktop. It
> lacks the level of user-pretties and network configurability I would look
> for in a desktop environment. My personal choice would be OS/2 for just
> about everything desktop related. I wish IBM had the guts to market it.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Jeffrey S. Worley
> Technical Services
> Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
> Technoid_at_Cheta.net
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Sat May 06 2000 - 10:21:09 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:08 BST