|
And Microsoft is thrilled that you have to develop for all their different OSs. It keeps you busy with the Windows side of things and gives them a reason to introduce yet another OS (WinXP) in the name of "unification".
Regards,
Alvaro
|
|
|
|
|
XP? that's old news. in six months, everyone will be worrying about Win-2002.
-c
------------------------------
Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
http://www.smalleranimals.com
|
|
|
|
|
"M$" yeah ok...I have a really hard time believing you could write just one version of an application for linux and be sure it would be compatible with 95+% of the linux boxes. Windows is pretty darn flexible when it comes to compatability...I have been impressed each year.
|
|
|
|
|
You should actually try some ?NIX programming. Not only do you have a much better chance of writting an application compatible across all Linux boxes, but it could quite easily be compatible with *most* versions of Windoze to as well.
Windows  flexible  easily impressed ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
