why blame MICROSOFT

Question about which tools to use, bugs, the best way to implement a function, etc should go here. Don't forget to see if your question is answered in the wiki first! When in doubt post here.
Jordan C.

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Jordan C. »

I think MS modified Q-DOS (which IIRC was the version they took code from) more than 'a bit', and Gates did program at least some of the code himself. The fact that all of it is stolen code with the names changed is just crap put out by anti-MS people to make you think that Gates just sat back and watched the money roll in.
RicoSanchez

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by RicoSanchez »

Tim Robinson wrote: Most criticism that Small Windows (95, 98, Me) receives is justified. I can't bring myself to call these pieces of software operating systems.

However, Big Windows (NT, 2000, XP) is far better. From what I've seen they are some of the best-designed and implemented operating systems around today, and certainly the best on the desktop. Sure, they have their faults; but Windows XP in particular is IMHO the most accessible and usable operating system available for virtually all desktop PC users.

I've never used OSX, but any version of Linux (including various desktop environments) has, at best, equalled what Windows XP has to offer, and has often fallen short.
I have to agree with Tim here.
And to add the following, I have had way more usability problems with Linux than with Big Windows.
Although my latest gentoo installation went completely fine, I still don't know why I have to choose a microsoft protocol instead of a logitech protocol for my logitech mouse. (I didn't say I didn't have usability problems with my latest gentoo installation.)

I like both systems, I never hated windows and I like to use both.
User avatar
Pype.Clicker
Member
Member
Posts: 5964
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:31 am
Location: In a galaxy, far, far away
Contact:

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Pype.Clicker »

Jordan C. wrote: I think MS modified Q-DOS (which IIRC was the version they took code from) more than 'a bit', and Gates did program at least some of the code himself.
Afaik, MS-DOS 1.0 was a mix of Quick&Dirty Operating System (QDOS) -- which wasn't stolen at all: just bought to the developer for a very cheap price -- CP/M and a bit of unix (for pipes and redirections, i think) ...

But if you compare Bill's story against Steve Jobs' or Linus', clearly Bill isn't a software engineer (i'm not sure whether he completed his studies or not, but they weren't completed when he started MicrOsoft, according to the story).

-- now i admit i wasn't in his room mates, so did he really code stuff or not ? difficult to say.
Mr_Spam

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Mr_Spam »

did you guys ever see the movie called silicon valley? i'm not sure if it is the absolute true story behind the creation of apple and microsoft but i belive its atleast baised on the true story.
LOneWoolF

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by LOneWoolF »

ok, my question is answered :)

but i don't care that,
windows is a good GAMING+platform... nothing else :P
i use it just for playing THPS3 and JK2...

GreeZ
LOneWoolF
Whatever5k

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Whatever5k »

Pype.Clicker wrote: Afaik, MS-DOS 1.0 was a mix of Quick&Dirty Operating System (QDOS) -- which wasn't stolen at all:
Ok, "stolen" is a way to heavy, that's why I put it in quotation marks. However, they did not really program their _own_ version, but modified an old one, that is what I wanted to say.
User avatar
Solar
Member
Member
Posts: 7615
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

It's en-vogue... ;-)

Post by Solar »

Most *nix type geeks have strong feelings about their platform.

Most Windows users do *not* have strong feelings about their platform, they just use it.

Ergo: *nix types know Windows and hate its guts. Most Windows types don't know *nix or just don't care.

Personally, I think both systems are bad. Windows because of it's technical "merit" (rather, absence of thereof), and business politics. *nix sucks in the UI and documentation department.

But I always have to don my asbestos underwear before I say so publically. 8)
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
Whatever5k

Re:It's en-vogue... ;-)

Post by Whatever5k »

Solar wrote: *nix sucks in the UI and documentation department.
What? UNIX is _very_ well documented, and I don't think X11 is looking bad.
However, I am probably going off-topic now ;)
beyond infinity lazy

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by beyond infinity lazy »

*loads the flamethrower to roast solars underoos*;)

nah, me, i am way too lazy to swing a club in this club.

But, Solar, tell me, what is the Problem with unix man pages? [user-looks-queer] and X-windows... I personally think one can live with it. It is not THAT bad and THAT condemnable as one says, but for we are grown up people, everyone has the right to have his own point of view.

It is with so many other things: I canna write a story that everybody likes nor can I write a program everyone (especially profs examining your diploma project) finds perfect/flawless...

And to add some coals to the grill: Mac OSX still rules :-))
Eero Ränik

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Eero Ränik »

1) Actually there wasn't much to develop from QDOS, all that DOS 1.0 could, was copying files from one floppy to another and running programs... I don't think that QDOS could have done anything lesser.
2) Bill Gates was a software engineer, but he learned actually business management or something in college...
3) About my opinion: I've used Microsoft products whole my life. I remember how I had only DOS in my first computer, and how I started learning to do absoultely anything with it... I personally don't see anything wrong with Microsoft products, especially Windows. I'm currently using Windows XP with VMware Workstation for all my other-platform needs, and I don't say that Windows XP would be any worser (or better) than any other OS I've used... It almost never crashes and if it does, then it mostly is user's fault.
4) Main reason why I don't like MacOS X, is that runs a bit slow. That new addon released a while back (was it called Jaguar?) made it a very good and powerful operation system, which also works normally...
LOneWoolF

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by LOneWoolF »

OH I can tell you whaz wrong with it

There are lots of microsoft-users who don't even know Lunix, BeOS or other things... or they just say That OS suxx because you can't play games on it, wich isn't true!!!

I tried loz of linux-distributions, an old unix, I even had BeOS on an old PC, and BeOS is a REALLY good OS! They shouldn't have stopped with beos... it could be better known thatn windows now... (<-MY opinion...)
User avatar
Pype.Clicker
Member
Member
Posts: 5964
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:31 am
Location: In a galaxy, far, far away
Contact:

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Pype.Clicker »

LOneWoolF wrote: I even had BeOS on an old PC, and BeOS is a REALLY good OS! They shouldn't have stopped with beos...
I guess they had no choice but stopping it ... However, there's an OpenBEOS attempt to make it revive ...
LOneWoolF

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by LOneWoolF »

really? can ya give me an address?
Whatever5k

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by Whatever5k »

adeelmahmood1

Re:why blame MICROSOFT

Post by adeelmahmood1 »

as LoneWoolf said windows is the best GAMING platform around .. all these OS's unix , linux etc .. cant compete that ..thats a fact
Post Reply