|
My first computer was Sinclair ZX Spectrum, and I LOVED it  . I've read that Linus Torvaldson's favourite computer was Sinclair QL. Maybe he should have sticked to it, instead of making  Linux.
I vote pro drink
|
|
|
|
|
My first one was a ZX 81, I also loved that one. (Just hated the keyboard)
- Anders
Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
|
|
|
|
|
my first 16bit (!) computer with 3.14mhz and 32kb ram - i really loved it !!!
btw: i voted for windoze... 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah the TI99/4A rocked. I got one when I was 12. Taught myself BASIC on it to make space invaders aliens dance around the screen. Of course I didn't have any drive or tape backup so I had to record my programs on paper and re-enter it every time I rebooted.
Ahh, The good old days....
Josh
josh@that-guy.net
|
|
|
|
|
Speccy Rulez Forever =)_
Thought my first computer was BK0010-01 (very popular Russian computer) 8-bit + 16K RAM + 16K ROM + Tape Recorder as the storage device. But the ZX-SPECTRUM was the REAL =) love for me.
ps: voted for Windows
Best regards,
-----------
Igor Soukhov (Brainbench/Tekmetrics ID:50759)
igor@soukhov.com | ICQ:57404554 | http://soukhov.com
|
|
|
|
|
Sure Apple has suffered from a dearth of software and tons of bad press over the years, but give them credit where it is due. Without the innovation of Apple over the years, we would not have Microsoft Windows, at least not in the form it is today. They stole the idea, implementation and styling from Apple years ago and they continue to do it year after year.
I wish for a world where the system that is responsible for all the creative thinking and continues to be a superior platform got the recognition and success it deserves.
Sef Tarbell
|
|
|
|
|
Well said code master. 
Microsoft always rips off from apple. 
|
|
|
|
|
.... Or maybe Microsoft doesn't let pride get in the way of a good idea. The thing that really gets me mad are all these vendors who think that their product is soooooo brilliant, when clearly all lack in some way.
I appreciate Microsoft because they have brought a semblance of order to a crazy industry. That's why they're successful. Hire software engineers from Apple, Digital, Sun, HP, Borland etc. so that these people can build thier expertise into Microsoft software.
It's all very well criticising, but try getting tech support out of Sun or Oracle. At least Microsoft documents their systems.
Cheers,
Karim.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft did not steal from Apple. They both stole from Xerox (PARC project in 1970's) 
I vote pro drink
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for stating this. The minute I read the "Mac is King" I went searching to see if anyone remembered the truth!
Eric Hansen
ehansen@pmsi.cc
|
|
|
|
|
The *only* reason Macs seem to work so well right out of the box is because there are so few upgrade options outside of Apple. When you have that much control over a limited hardware selection, it's not really that hard to write a reliable OS. Considering a PC can be mutated into literally THOUSANDS of combinations of hardware, I think Windows and Linux does a pretty damn fine job of wrapping it all up for you.
And for the record, Microsoft did NOT steal from Apple. They both stole from Xerox.
|
|
|
|
|
"Bad press"? My God, Apple has been the darling of the media since they released that thing!
And I know we all realize that the original idea for the GUI came from Xeroc PARC, not Apple - MS and Apple both made use of the idea that Xerox freely gave away.
I need to see if I can track down 10 garage-sale Macs and a bowling ball.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish for a world where the system that is responsible for all the creative thinking and continues to be a superior platform got the recognition and success it deserves.
It's already been pointed out that Xerox PARC thought of WIMPS (Windows, icons, mouse, pulldown menus ) first, although it *is* true that Bill Gates started Windows after a tour of Apple and seeing the Mac. I just thought I'd point out in relation to the above that the Amiga is well and *truly* dead.
Christian
As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet.
Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought I'd point out in relation to the above that the Amiga is well and *truly* dead.
A search for Amiga on the web might change your mind there. I used to own an Amiga, so did a search last year to see what would come up. Interestingly enough there is/was some sort of new Amiga OS being developed, Amigas were/are still being sold in the UK, and there was something that said Gateway was planning to re-introduce the Amiga to the US somehow.
Just some interesting info.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - I actually chose the Amiga to make a subtle comment on people who are platform zealots because I had heard rumblings of new Amigas, and I notice they are still publishing several mgas that confidently predict the *return* of the Amiga. The Amiga was a great platform but it was never successful apart from as a games platform or for video work which means they have been outdone by the Playstation 2 and the PC. Time will tell I guess, but as a long time Amiga fan, I think these people are dreaming.
Christian
As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet.
Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish it had really happened.
BTW, you did it again. Not enough choices.
|
|
|
|
|
>Not enough choices
Not enough space :P
cheers,
Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
|
|
|
|
|
In spite of all the monopolistic claims against Microsoft, they definately have one thing going for them: Consistent APIs. Now, this doesn't mean that I like some of the APIs, because they can indeed be clumsy at times. However, if anyone here has ever tried to write software that is portable across different Unix variants, or even different versions of the same variant, (I have done both), then you know how much of a headache it can be.
A good example of this is writing an application that runs under XWindow. Do you want to support raw Xlib, Motif, GTK, or Qt? Which version will you support? How can you guarentee that the end-user will have that particular library installed?
Even for command line applications, simliar issues arise: Who's libc will you use? Which version? Are you interfacing with kernel structures? If so, how? Is your Unix variant POSIX compliant, giving you access to certain standardized functions?
While you could argue, and rightfully so, that if I'm just downloading something, the GNU configure script can take care of a lot of the differences, there is a catch: As a system administrator, I would not want to have to download source code and compile it for 'n' different Unix variants and versions in my shop. I would rather everyone use a single platform that I can download a binary for, and simply install it.
And yes, a shop could standardize on a specific Unix variant, but then there's always the question of hardware support. If something in your computer is not on your Unix vendors list of supported hardware, then you're out of luck. (Unless you use something like a Sun, where one company is responsible for both the hardware and the software. Apple, anyone?)
I would enjoy seeing some arguments in favor of variety, rather than standardization! Please, prove me wrong! 
--
Paul
"I drank... WHAT?"
|
|
|
|
|
Well, with Unix, however, you usually have a choice whether you want a binary (that is if you are using a popular variant and the binary is availabe) or you can compile from source (typically provided). Under windows it's not so obvious because the OS doesn't come with compiler, so you can do nothing unless you buy compiler and by any luck there is a source.
API are totally unconsistent under Win - see the time stamp problems and even something so simple as the conversion betweeen the "long" and "short" filename under Win95, 98, NT and w2k. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I have yet to find a user who will compile my product before using it. Get real, most people don't even know how to click on setup.exe
Cheers,
Karim.
|
|
|
|
|
The trick is, they can compile. It's not all that hard to type:
make ./install
The Unix will not let the system to fall just because user will install some software. Try that with windows - it's gonna die hard just because of some DLL being replaced by stupid setup.exe.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry George, but I have to agree with Karim. In the past, I have worked as a teacher in adult education classes for people wanting to learn more about computers. I have also done one-on-one training for people at their homes. Probably 99% of them simply don't understand what a compiler is, or how to use one. Nor should they!
A compiler is a tool used by software developers. I would not expect the end-user of one of my products to understand how to compile it from source. Besides, not all Unix variants come with a compiler. The ones that are commercially available (Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, AIX, etc.) usually do not have any bundled compilers. Yes, they could download GCC and install it, but even then, they would have to download a binary for their system, and install it, because they don't have a native compiler to build GCC from sources.
You have to stop looking at things from your limited point of view as a developer. To understand how a user thinks, look at a software installation from your parents' or grandparents' point of view. Would they rather have a computer that simply "works", and can have new software installed just by inserting a disc in the CD-Rom drive, or should they have to learn what a configure script is, how to run make, and how to edit in vi or emacs when something doesn't go quite right?
Try to be a little more open-minded about this subject, rather than using a "fallacy of hasty generalization" in many of your posts.
FYI: "Fallacy of hasty generaliztion" means using too small of a sample to support an argument. For example: I had a setup program overwrite a DLL, therefore all setup programs will exhibit this behaviour. In fact, Microsoft has gone to great lengths with the file protection system to ensure that this does not happen, even when a setup program misbehaves.
--
Paul
"I drank... WHAT?"
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, come on - the point is that you CAN, not that you HAVE TO compile the stuff. Most of the time - take a Red Hat Linux - you also get a binary and it works out of the box, the user has no problem to install or use. If you use a popular platform - you get a binary. If not - there is a code to save your ass and money. This is not a limited point of view - it's as broad as you can get, because I am talking about a choice here, and you are talking about the "user" - pretty narrow.
Now - CD-ROM trick is no problem - works everywhere. To run make you simply type "make".
You are using a very small sample to support your argument. Eg.: "I once had to install software by compiling it on Unix therefore every installation is a compilation on Unix". Truth is - any system CAN be user friendly or not, on a case by case basis. However, Unix as being properly designed, maintained and reviewed offers a lot more on the security and stability fields. It is a good choice for a comming generation of people who know how to use make and who want to have a choice. We just have to wait and see how it all goes along...
|
|
|
|
|
My comment about your generalization was made in reference to your statement:
The Unix will not let the system to fall just because user will install some software. Try that with windows - it's gonna die hard just because of some DLL being replaced by stupid setup.exe.
I have had this problem with Unix systems, including Solaris and GNU/Linux. Software wants to dump some dependant libraries in /usr/local/lib, and another piece of software installs a different version of these libraries in /opt/*/lib. Which one you get depends on the setting of the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, and the settings in /etc/ld.so.conf. I have even had 'make install' scripts add things to /lib and /usr/lib, or change one of the symlinks to point to a "newer" version of a library, just to have it blow up on me. As I stated in my previous post, Microsoft is working toward eliminating this problem. Their solution may not be the best, but at least they're trying to do something about it.
However, I never made a general statement saying that installing from source is the only choice for Unix systems. I am merely pointing out that it is impractical for most end-users.
--
Paul
"I drank... WHAT?"
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is, George, people are still complaining on how difficult computers are to use, even with Windows. How do you expect them to cope with UNIX?
Microsoft are trying to get rid of DLL hell. That's what COM was about, and that's what .NET is about. Together with the new installer service, this can reduce user irritation, and puts the onus on the developer to make a clean installation script.
As an example, I was recently installing a PERL-based app on a web hoster's server for a client. The PERL app needed several modules which were not installed. Although the technical support staff were very willing, they didn't have a clue how to install these modules. If tech. support have difficulty with a relatively simple task like this, how do you think Gran'ma Ethel is going to cope? She's not. In fact, she wouldn't even get close. You may argue that PERL is not compiled, but the fact is, even tech support get confused sometimes. While this remains true, Windows setup, though not perfect, is the only viable alternative for 99.9 percent of our clients.
Speaking of clients, I have yet to find one who didn't want Windows. This being the case, I will continue to develop for the platform of choice. Why develop for the 10% when you can develop for the 90%? It doesn't make financial sense!
Cheers,
Karim.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
