Free Woodworking Report Available

And revels in the spelling mistakes.

I htink I'd say my first word processor was a KayPro in '82, and it
cost something like $2800...but didn't have a thing on it supplied by
MS, that I am able to recall. OS was cp/m.

A place I worked in the late '60s had IBM word processors: what a gas
compared to our current machinery. Card punches and all.

In article <[email protected]>,
Rob Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>I am very suspicious. I am in the process of starting up a small
>woodworking business. I figure I can learn from anyone (even if I have to
>disregard 95% or what I am told). So when I went to download, Explorer
>started acting real goofy and I never downloaded anything (that I know of).
>So I am off to update Norton definitions and run a system scan.
>Just beware.

The beware *IS*JUSTIFIED*. on several counts.


First, the "free" (a $29.95 value) report is just a come-on for a $497
"one year subscription" that supposedly has a "value" in excess of $2,400.


Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
is _really_ doing.

*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.

Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.

In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
>
>> Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
>> approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
>
>According to the security settings for IE 6.x, you can. Why do you believe
>that you can't?

Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me, some
time ago. :) This _was_ at least a couple of versions back, but MS
had decided that javascript was _not_ optional anymore, although _Java_
remained optional.

If they've reversed that policy decision, *GREAT*. I'm stunned, shocked,
and amazed, that MS would _allow_ users to turn off a 'feature' that
provides lots of 'flash and sizzle', along with a bunch of security risks.

Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
throat. <wry grin>

I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
talking about" in that regard.

In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
>
>> Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me,
>some
>> time ago. :)
>
>Well, I figured that you knew something I didn't - not that you don't know
>plenty that I don't :) - but if I am not mistaken, you have always been
>able to disable the Java VM, at least since it was included in the recent
>versions of IE.

No argument, you could always disable the Java VM. "Javascript" is something
*completely* different. Paraphrasing Jack Webb, "only the names are similar,
to confuse the innocent."

Does current MSIE provide *two* options -- one for disabling Java, and a
second one for disabling JavaScript?

>
>> Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
>> throat. <wry grin>
>
>Can't argue with that ...
>
>>
>> I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
>> rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
>> talking about" in that regard.
>
>Morale: I've learned to be careful about what someone who "knew what they're
>talking about" told be if I didn't know the answer first myself,
>particularly from my "networking peers" who "don't do MSFT". ;>)

Nit: I _think_ you mean "moral", not "morale". <grin>

I get my info on such matters from peers who *do* do MSFT.

And there is a reason I stated things exactly the way I did. I know what I
"don't know". Thus I identified it as my 'belief', not as 'fact'. :)

>
>That said ... MSFT "says" that you can disable JavaScript, and I believe
>that you actually can in the latest version ... but, like you I don't
>believe a damn thing they say and always want to test/verify each iteration
>to make sure they aren't just blowing smoke.

Again, I have to ask, are we talking about the Java VM, or the -unrelated-
thing called JavaScript? One disable option, or two?

>swingman ... who is plenty sick and tired of applying seemingly endless MSFT
>security patches to upwards of 30 boxes a month, and dreads seeing the
>latest "Microsoft Security Bulletin" arrive ... the one last week had SEVEN
>"critical" patches that needed to be applied!!

My sympathies.

Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.

In article <[email protected]>,
Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
>>I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
>>with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
>>encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
>>is _really_ doing.
>>
>>*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
>>using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.
>>
>>Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
>>approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
>--------
>To disable Javascript in IE6:
>1. Click Tools.
>2. Select Internet options
>3. Click the Security tab.
>4. Click the Internet icon.
>5. Click the Custom level button.
>6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
>option.
>7. Click OK twice.
>

BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
root name.

In article <[email protected]>,
Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>To disable Javascript in IE6:
>>>1. Click Tools.
>>>2. Select Internet options
>>>3. Click the Security tab.
>>>4. Click the Internet icon.
>>>5. Click the Custom level button.
>>>6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
>>>option.
>>>7. Click OK twice.
>>>
>>BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
>>different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
>>root name.
>----------
>BZZZZZT! right back. If you look at:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;154036
>and read the section: Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, 6:
>you'll see the note that says:
>NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
>scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
>Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
>disable both types of scripts.
>

Sorry, Charlie, but you need to learn to read (or write) better. At the
place you cite, the 'b' step says:
"... click Disable under ACTIVE SCRIPTING AND Scripting of Java applets."
====================

*YOUR* directions mention *ONLY* the 'java applets' checkbox.

Following your directions _as_posted_ (disabling java applets *only),
*DOES*NOT* disable Javascript.

The BZZZT! _was_ accurate.

Note: The web-page you cite also _lies_ with regard to (at least some)
older versions of MSIE -- _even_though_ the "disable active scripting"
box was checked, IE *would* run both Javascript and ActiveX scripts
under proper provocation. Known to be fixed as of 5.5, Definite
problem with some installations of 4.x (all revisions), depending on
the patches applied. (both shops I just checked with went directly
from 4.x to 5.5, so no hard data on 5.0 or 5.0.1 available to me.)

In article <[email protected]>,
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that, thanks
>> to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like I
>> did in 1979.
>
>Word Perfect was THAT much?
>And MicroSoft wrote it?

Word Perfect existed *BEFORE* the IBM PC existed. Several _years_ in fact.

I used version 1.08(!!) on Data General mini-computers in (I think) 1979.
DG "Eclipse" machines was it's "native" environment. It was then "ported" to
the 8088 architecture.

And we won't even mention the _many_ CP/M word-processors -- e.g. Wordstar,
volkswriter, etc. Although, admittedly, most of those _were_ a PITA to use,
due to having _only_ a QWERTY keyboard, and no "function keys" or similar.

In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
>> a 32-bit graphical interface for
>> a 16-bit extension to
>> an 8-bit operating system for
>> a 4-bit processor, written by
>> a 2-bit company, without
>> 1 bit of common sense.
>
>It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
>programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
>OS or program.

You're not under the mistaken impression that Microsoft wrote the original
DOS (PC-DOS, MS-DOS), are you? Hell, Gates _sold_ it to IBM, and *then* went
out and bought the rights from a company that "didn't know what they had".
(Yup, that's the chronology, he sold IBM something that he did _not_ own
the rights to; admittedly, he did "have reason to believe" he _could_ buy
those rights for a relative pittance. M$ has _always_ been 'marketing
driven', not a 'technology' company. And it _shows_ in their product line.)


Several better ones exist (now, _and_ then). OS/9, and QNX, just to name
a couple. Heck, MP/M 86 had features _years_ before M$ "invented" them.

The _only_ reason that MS "succeeded" was that Gates sold a product (that
he didn't *at*that*time* have the rights to) to IBM. And IBM's entry into
the 'personal computer' market "legitimized" it in the eyes of business
purchasers. The "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" mentality at work.

Alpha-Micro had better hardware, *and* better software. So did Tandy(!!)
Who's machines (like the 'Tandy 2000') were *far* superior to IBM's competing
offerings (and which they got to market _before_ the IBM products) -- industry
joke was that the "AT" in the "IBM PC/AT" stood for "Another Tandy".
Unfortunately, while Tandy's "x86" machines were 'MS-DOS' compatible, the
Tandy machines were not 'hardware compatible' "clones". Software that 'played
on the bare hardware' (rather than using the O/S services, or even BIOS calls),
didn't work on the Tandy machines.

Software writers did that _because_ the O/S services (provided by Microsoft),
and the BIOS code (as done by IBM) were *SO*BAD* that circumventing them was
-necessary- to get decent performance from the hardware. Tandy used _better_,
more capable, hardware in their 'business'-class machines, and with "better"
BIOS code, got _very_acceptable_ performance through those 'portable'
interfaces, w/o programmers having to play on the bare hardware.

In article <[email protected]>,
Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>To disable Javascript in IE6:
>>>>>1. Click Tools.
>>>>>2. Select Internet options
>>>>>3. Click the Security tab.
>>>>>4. Click the Internet icon.
>>>>>5. Click the Custom level button.
>>>>>6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
>>>>>option.
>>>>>7. Click OK twice.
>>>>>
>>>>BZZZZT! _That_ disables _JAVA_. *Not* Javascript. The two are *entirely*
>>>>different things, linked =only= by an 'apparent' (*misleadingly* so) common
>>>>root name.
>>>BZZZZZT! right back. If you look at:
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;154036
>>>and read the section: Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.01, 5.5, 6:
>>>you'll see the note that says:
>>>NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
>>>scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
>>>Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
>>>disable both types of scripts.
>>>
>>Sorry, Charlie, but you need to learn to read (or write) better. At the
>>place you cite, the 'b' step says:
>> "... click Disable under ACTIVE SCRIPTING AND Scripting of Java applets."
>> ====================
>>
>>*YOUR* directions mention *ONLY* the 'java applets' checkbox.
>>
>>Following your directions _as_posted_ (disabling java applets *only),
>>*DOES*NOT* disable Javascript.
>>
>>The BZZZT! _was_ accurate.
>>
>>Note: The web-page you cite also _lies_ with regard to (at least some)
>> older versions of MSIE -- _even_though_ the "disable active scripting"
>> box was checked, IE *would* run both Javascript and ActiveX scripts
>> under proper provocation. Known to be fixed as of 5.5, Definite
>> problem with some installations of 4.x (all revisions), depending on
>> the patches applied. (both shops I just checked with went directly
>> from 4.x to 5.5, so no hard data on 5.0 or 5.0.1 available to me.)
>
>-------------
>I don't know why you continue to maintain that disabling active
>scripting does not disable javascript.

Abe, you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.

I stated that AT A TIME IN THE PAST, under some circumstances, that MSIE's
'disable' box for "activie scripting" *did*not*function* as it was
intended to. This was a *bug* in the softare. You _do_ understand the word
"bug", don't you?

I stated that this bug _has_been_eliminated_ in later versions of the program.
If it is not obvious to you, this means I acknowledge that the newer versions
of MSIE _do_ properly "not process" javascript, when ACTIVE SCRIPTING is
disabled.


> In MS terminology, disabling
>scripting of java applets means disabling scripting of both java AND
>javascript. I should know, as I work in the IIS group and test this
>stuff regularly.

What you "know", and what *MICROSOFT* tells the world, are "incompatible".

Per the material on the Microsoft tech note that *you* were quoting as
reference earlier.. repeating, from _your_ sources:
"NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX
scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft
Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you
disable both types of scripts."

In MSIE version 6. (version id 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2) There are two
_separate_and_distinct_ sub-scections underthe "Scripting" section.
one for 'active scripting' (enable/disable/prompt)
one for 'scripting of Java applets' (enable/disable/prompt)


Now, why would MICROSOFT provide two _separate_ items, and publicly state
that their "javascript" is enabled/disabled by the *first* item, when *you*
KNOW that it is enabled/disabled byt the *second* one.

Note: "JScript" is Microsoft's bastardized varient of "javascript". The
one they got *sued* over their unauthorized changes to the language
(and *LOST* the suit -- had to restore the 'standard' functioning.)

I see only about two possibilities:
1) You really *do* know more about this than Microsoft. In which case
you should really share that superior knowledge with MS, so that they
can stop putting out "bad information" on their web-site. Can't imagine
why you'd ask MS for verification of something you know more about than
they do, though.
2) You don't understand that "active scripting", and "scripting of java
applets" are talking about *different* things.


> In addition, when I inquired to the MS MVPs, I got
>the following:
>Q:
>Is it possible for an end-user to disable Java Script in IE6? Where
>would I do this in the UI?
>
>Yes,
>Under each security zone, look under Scripting / Active Scripting.
>--
>Michael Harris
>Microsoft MVP Scripting

Do you note that Mr. Harris's directions, "Active Scripting", is *DIFFERENT*
than that which you claimed? to wit:

"6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets,..."

*IF*, as you claim, 'scripting of java applets' disables javascript,
_why_ does the other item 'active scripting' exist?

In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:

>If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.

Probably _better_ software, too...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

>Second, The page for the 'full outline' is all ENCRYPTED JavaScript.
>I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
>with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
>encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
>is _really_ doing.
>
>*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
>using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.
>
>Note: I don't believe it is possible to turn off javascript in anything
>approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
--------
To disable Javascript in IE6:
1. Click Tools.
2. Select Internet options
3. Click the Security tab.
4. Click the Internet icon.
5. Click the Custom level button.
6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets, and select the Disable
option.
7. Click OK twice.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:00:13 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
>> a 32-bit graphical interface for
>> a 16-bit extension to
>> an 8-bit operating system for
>> a 4-bit processor, written by
>> a 2-bit company, without
>> 1 bit of common sense.
>
> It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
> programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
> OS or program.

There's this thing called "open source software" which is exactly that -
better OS and programs than MS makes. It's done by people like me, who
know that it _can_ be done better, and we're doing it.

So, we're not just laughing and complaining, we're doing something about
it. Give firefox a try to get an idea of the sort of products it
produces.

On 16 Feb 2005 01:40:04 GMT, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bruce Barnett wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>> I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.
>>
>> They were not "word software packages"--see
>
> Okay. I know about the Wang, and other systems out there. I also used
> Interleaf, which did cost $18,000 and ran on a $15,000 computer, like
> the Apollo Domain, or the Sun Workstation. Nit pick on the words if
> you want. That's not the point.

Man, I miss Interleaf. I _still_ haven't found a drawing package
that is as usable as frames within an interleaf document. Pointers
would be most welcome. Wish I still had a copy, now that I have
the hardware.

> It was happening anyway, and the technology was NOT developed by
> Microsoft, but by others. Microsoft didn't even develop MS-DOS. They
> bought it. If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap
> software.

Well, I think MS does deserve _some_ credit for increasing demand
for bigger/faster/cheaper hardware. Their bloat makes my next hard
drive purchase cheaper, y'know?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>>
>> Probably _better_ software, too...
>
> But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:50:40 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
>> Well, I think MS does deserve _some_ credit for increasing demand
>> for bigger/faster/cheaper hardware. Their bloat makes my next hard
>> drive purchase cheaper, y'know?
>
>
> I think you have the primary cause/effect backwards here...

Could be. I'm _trying_ to give MS the benefit of the doubt on something
just to see what it's like, but frankly, I'm not real good at it.

> software
> always expands to fill/overtax the available hardware...

Well...each Mac OSX dot-rev I've installed has _improved_ performance
on the same hardware, so I'm not sure "every/all" appies, but I
see your point.

> not that there
> isn't impetus to create new hardware to solve larger problems, but the
> problems existed first. What was/is practical to solve simply moves up
> based on the presently available hardware. The explosion of the wasting
> of CPU cycles for nonproductive computing is a new phenomenon brought on
> by the advent of cheap processors and large memories.

Yes. Back in the day, every byte counted, literally. Hell, I'd use
. instead of 0 when possible, because . is a single-precision zero,
while 0 too two bytes. Start a loop at zero, not one, because it has
to count past that anyway and cycles are time. "Tokenize" your BASIC
instructions so they don't have to be detokenized at runtime. Ah,
the fun.

> If one hasn't worked in an environment where 1 or 2 kwords of memory was
> still unimaginably large, it's hard to relate to today's environment.

"Yeah, let's just load this 25MB DLL so we have the value of PI in
case we might want it" type stuff, yes. Drives me nuts when I see
crap like that.

Dave "We wore an onion on our belt, as was the style at the time" Hinz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:20 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>> >>
>> >> Probably _better_ software, too...
>> >
>> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>>
>> Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.
>
> Well, hardly <everything>... :)

Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well, but...can you
name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:30:44 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well,
>> but...can you name a current major computing platform that
>> isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>
> Stratus' VOS. Though last I heard Stratus was considering a Linux
> port. Not sure if they made that decision or not.

Dunno, I'm not familiar with it at all. We've got a Linux partition
on our IBM mainframe, which 5 years ago would have been unthinkable.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:06:12 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>>can you
>>name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>
> For some definition of the word "major", these come to mind:
>
> * PalmOS

OK, that one I'll go with.

> * J2ME
> * Brew

Not familiar with these.


> * Nintendo GameCube
> * Nindendo Gameboy (Advance, SP, etc.)
> * Sony Playstation, Playstation 2

Not sure if I'd call these "computing platforms". Sure, they're
computers, but the primary purpose isn't computing, it's gaming.
My microwave as a CPU in it as well...

> All of these have millions of units shipped, and markets that are in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. None are Unix-based.
> None are Windows-based.

Right. This also doesn't address the embedded computing in an amazing
nubmer of devices (cars, appliances, sewing machines, etc etc etc),
but even those you'll find a lot of 'doze and Unix in.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:07:13 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:20 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
>>>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Probably _better_ software, too...
>>>> >
>>>> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.
>>>
>>> Well, hardly <everything>... :)
>>
>>Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well, but...can you
>>name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>>
> Tandem. Used largely for mission-critical applications where downtime is
> intolerable, such as most of the world's major stock exchanges, a substantial
> fraction of telephone switching equipment and ATM networks, and an awful lot
> of hospitals. Spent over 20 years of my IS career working with Tandem
> equipment. MAN! but it's nice to work on a machine that never goes down.

I know what you mean there. But, I notice that www.tandem.com forwards
to compaq.com where it 404's. Are they still around, or did HP kill them
off, or ???

Dave

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:08:47 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message
>>
>>> 70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price is
>>> cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to spend
>>> individually, I suspect).
>>
>>You left out "compatible and interchangeable" to describe the hardware, and
>>a ubiquitous OS, love it or hate it, without which none of it would have
>>happened when it did.
>
> Those things pre-date Microsoft. The Apple ][ is probably the first
> mainstream example in the PC field.

Excuse please, but who wrote Applesoft?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:20:20 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>> > >
>> > > Probably _better_ software, too...
>> > >
>> >
>> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Unix.
>>
> Thirty years later! Damn, you guys are really fanatics about lin/u/nix.

Ehh...pays well, y'know?

> I liked the OS2 that I had on a bunch of monitors at the prisons, myself.

Good point. There are still ATMs running OS/2 out there.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:59:47 GMT, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????

Sure.

> I been in this computer crapolla for quite a few years
> myself and which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
> is the "standard version" ????

They all are. A _good_ Unix sysadmin can speak to any of them
with a minimum of retraining between. And nearly all of the
current flavors of unix can be used to build the same tools
from the same sourcecode.

> and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
> utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???

When it went from being the shell to being the kernel, which
would be when they went from the win95/98/98SE/ME world to
the WinNT/win2K/winXP/win2003 world, I think.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:11:13 GMT, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> See my comments about W/XXXX from an earlier statement.
>
> Let's see:
>
> The largest number of midrange computers in the world
> are running OS/400, which will also run Unix,AIX,Linux
> and Windows as "guests" all at the same time.
>
> AIX(another Unix) is installed in about a billion systems
> strung all over the world.(even the famous Flea-Bay)

Thought they were running Solaris? Were a few years ago, at
least for the application servers. Rack after rack after
rack of V880s...

> MVS is running most/all of the major mainframes in the
> world. That little OS has been around since 1970's and
> only god knows what the current version is...
>
> I don't recall any of the "other" folks like
> RCA,Data General,Honeywell Bull,Digital,GE,etc are
> still around.....(I left out many dead companies)

How many of these are _current_ major players, though? Lots
of Linux at GE, at least in Med Systems (sorry, "GE Healthcare"
now).

> Besides, this is NOT a computer forum and we need to move
> right along to somthing wood related ????

I've got a computer built into a cherry cabinet. Beautiful, but
ancient. I should do something about that.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:17:17 GMT, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tamdem was bought and sold a few times...what's left is
> sold under the HP name...(what's left)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers

Sad what happens to some of the big names. I've got a
D|I|G|I|T|A|L monitor built in the 1990s, which I probably won't
be able to replace in kind.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:26:06 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Pat Barber" wrote in message
>> Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????
>>
>> and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
>> utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???
>
> How about starting in 1988 with David Cutler and his team's first iteration
> of Windows NT, and for real, circa 1993, with the release of NT 3.1 to the
> public?

Yes, that's what I thought as well. When DOS became an app that runs
in Windows, rather than Windows being an app that ran in DOS.

I am truly abashed at the depth of my knowledge of Microsoft's history.
And to think I used to be an proponent (well, in the early 80's, but
still...)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
>> Right. This also doesn't address the embedded computing in an amazing
>> nubmer of devices (cars, appliances, sewing machines, etc etc etc),
>> but even those you'll find a lot of 'doze and Unix in.
>
> The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
> desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
> Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
> under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
> employers' product(s).

That's probably going to change; Wind River just went Linux.

> Large number of user interfaces are going that way though simply as
> course of least resistance...

Yup. No longer makes sense to custom-anything when there's an easy
solution on the shelf.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:44:54 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:06:12 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>can you
>>>>name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>>>
>>> For some definition of the word "major", these come to mind:
>>>
>>> * PalmOS
>>
>>OK, that one I'll go with.
>>
>>> * J2ME
>>> * Brew
>>
>>Not familiar with these.
>
> They're both cell phone application delivery platforms.

So, more embedded than "sitting at a computer" kind of thing.


>>> * Nintendo GameCube
>>> * Nindendo Gameboy (Advance, SP, etc.)
>>> * Sony Playstation, Playstation 2
>>
>>Not sure if I'd call these "computing platforms". Sure, they're
>>computers, but the primary purpose isn't computing, it's gaming.
>
> I think the line is blurring, particularly since consoles are moving
> towards more networking and computers have such a history for gaming.

OK. But, still, I don't think a game console fits many peoples'
definition of "current major computing platform".

In article <[email protected]>, george@least says...
> > >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
> >
> > Probably _better_ software, too...
> >
>
> But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>

Yep - based on Unix and free - Oh, we've got that now.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> ) Word processing was becoming cheaper (Word Star came out in 1977,
> Word Perfect came it in 1979)
>
Forgot Electric Pencil?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Prior to all this, CP/M machines running things like WordStar were much
> less costly than more institutional word processors, even back in the
> 70's.
>
The fact that a company named Ecosoft managed to put a fullblown K&R C
compiler on a 64K CP/M machine still boggles my mind. Everyone else was
offering subsets. I could develop software for a big machine on my
little S100 bus system.

And yes, they even had software floating point.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:01:15 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:08:47 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>>> Those things pre-date Microsoft. The Apple ][ is probably the first
>>> mainstream example in the PC field.
>>
>>Excuse please, but who wrote Applesoft?
>
> Microsoft. I said as much in another post.

Yeah, I saw that after I read this. Not sure of posting order, not
that it matters.

> That said, they didn't have anything to do with the price or
> availabiliy of the hardware. I also doubt that the marginal difference
> between Integer BASIC and Applesoft was what made or broke the Apple ][.

> Going back, Microsoft was founded in reaction to the avaibility of cheap
> hardware (in the form of the Altair 8800).

I used to have an Altair 680, but a... let's say person I know...
left it IN A LEAKY GARAGE and it got wrecked. Ask me how I feel
about that. No really, go ahead.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:58:17 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I know what you mean there. But, I notice that www.tandem.com forwards
>>to compaq.com where it 404's. Are they still around, or did HP kill them
>>off, or ???
>
> Still breathing. But they don't call it Tandem anymore; it's now "HP NonStop".
> http://h20223.www2.hp.com/nonstopcomputing/cache/76385-0-0-0-121.aspx

Odd that they wouldn't bother fixing the forward at tandem.com though.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:35:14 -0600, MSCHAEF.COM <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>>I used to have an Altair 680, but a... let's say person I know...
>>left it IN A LEAKY GARAGE and it got wrecked. Ask me how I feel
>>about that. No really, go ahead.
>
> Argh..... that's awful.

Still haven't forgiven the bastard, obviously. Some things just
can't be fixed, y'know?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:21:23 -0500, Guess who <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2005 23:05:05 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I saw that after I read this. Not sure of posting order, not
>>that it matters.
>
> Truth be known, none of this OT/BS matters.

Yup.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:03:14 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
>>desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
>>Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
>>under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
>>employers' product(s).
>
> A lot of them are real-time applications running on hardware with
> constrained memory, so that's understandable. Linux is beginning
> to make inroads here.

Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:
http://robots.net/article/1424.html

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:56:42 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 16:16:55 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Interesting article at slashdot a bit ago, on this topic:
>>http://robots.net/article/1424.html
>
> I didn't know that Linux had made such large inroads.

Well, it's good, it's free, and it runs on lots of hardware. What's not
to like?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >
> > Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
> > a 32-bit graphical interface for
> > a 16-bit extension to
> > an 8-bit operating system for
> > a 4-bit processor, written by
> > a 2-bit company, without
> > 1 bit of common sense.
>
> Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that,
thanks
> to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like
I
> did in 1979.
>
> --

CPM forever!

Bruce Barnett wrote:
>
...
> I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.

They were not "word software packages"--see

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_8.html

> But you said that MSFT caused software to be cheap.
> Word Perfect was first sold in 1979, and it wasn't a Micro$oft product.
>
> Do you still claim that MSFT was the reason for cheap software?
> I believe that prices would have dropped anyway.
> $18,000 software on a $3000 computer with millions of potential buyers?
> THAT's a business plan destined to die!

Would have been if it had been true...at that time it was <far> more
expensive to produce the hardware than you're imagining plus there was
the need to amortize development costs over a relatively small market.
There were <not> millions of potential buyers at the cost even though it
was a significant drop from the dedicated hardware systems that preceded
the DisplayWriter.

I can't recall precisely the trade name(s) for the earlier IBM systems
that preceded the DisplayWriter, but we had two where I worked in the
late 70s as we had a DOE "Q" clearance and they were the only system
qualified by DOE as secure (w/o building a completely enclosed facility
which was totally impractical). They rest of the company was using
VAXen w/ a <very> expensive word-processing software package. That was
something like $500k for the VAX and I don't recall for the software but
it made $18k look like chump-change. Those IBM systems were far more
expensive than the DisplayWriter, but well worth the price considering
the alternative was an IBM Selectric or equivalent. A search of the IBM
archive site didn't locate one of them although I'm sure a more general
search would uncover some history buff who's got all the data on them.
But the cost reduction from the previous systems plus smaller form
factor made them attractive. But, we couldn't use them as they didn't
pass the DOE "Q" requirements for emanations.

As Swingman says, persepective (or lack thereof) is everything in
evaluating what was/wasn't value...

Sidelight--
Our office was directly across the street from DOE regional headquarters
and one of demonstrations they would provide outside contractor security
officers was a demonstration of eavesdropping. They would bring us in
to a conference room and put a display screen up on the wall and have a
typist in a remote location (on occasion actually our office) type a
letter. The characters would pop up on the screen as she typed w/ about
a 80-90% accuracy rate, plucked out of the ether by their listening
devices as the were displayed on her CRT. Various agents were picked up
over the years outside the DOE facilities w/ foreign versions of similar
equipment (which were not as capable, but certainly capable enough to be
able to get the gist of what was being typed).

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
> > a 32-bit graphical interface for
> > a 16-bit extension to
> > an 8-bit operating system for
> > a 4-bit processor, written by
> > a 2-bit company, without
> > 1 bit of common sense.
>
> It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it when
> programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to make a better
> OS or program.

There was also a PC VMS "work-alike"...multi-user/multi-tasking...

Pat Barber wrote:
>
> Ahhhhh the good old days... The Displaywriter took over
> from the "Mag Card Composer", which was a IBM Selectric
> with mag storage and other fancy features... It went
> for well over 10K as I recall.

There were a whole series of other standalone systems between there as
well that were processor-based. They went in the $20k range or
thereabouts depending on printer options, etc.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>
> Probably _better_ software, too...
>

But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least>
wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
> >>
> >> Probably _better_ software, too...
> >>
> >But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>
> Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?
>
When you set 'em, rather than follow 'em, it makes a difference.

I suffered, as all we old farts did, through hardware and software
incompatibilities for a long time. The devil you know....

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
> >
> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
> >>
> >> Probably _better_ software, too...
> >
> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>
> Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.

Well, hardly <everything>... :)

Dave Hinz wrote:
...
> Well, I think MS does deserve _some_ credit for increasing demand
> for bigger/faster/cheaper hardware. Their bloat makes my next hard
> drive purchase cheaper, y'know?


I think you have the primary cause/effect backwards here...software
always expands to fill/overtax the available hardware...not that there
isn't impetus to create new hardware to solve larger problems, but the
problems existed first. What was/is practical to solve simply moves up
based on the presently available hardware. The explosion of the wasting
of CPU cycles for nonproductive computing is a new phenomenon brought on
by the advent of cheap processors and large memories.

If one hasn't worked in an environment where 1 or 2 kwords of memory was
still unimaginably large, it's hard to relate to today's environment.

Dave Hinz wrote:
...
> Right. This also doesn't address the embedded computing in an amazing
> nubmer of devices (cars, appliances, sewing machines, etc etc etc),
> but even those you'll find a lot of 'doze and Unix in.

The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
employers' product(s).

Large number of user interfaces are going that way though simply as
course of least resistance...

Charles Krug wrote:
>
...
>
> Different market entirely.

Of course...only brought into the discussion to balance off that there
is another whole world out there besides the PC...

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
> > >
> > > Probably _better_ software, too...
> > >
> >
> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
> >
> >
>
> Unix.
>
Thirty years later! Damn, you guys are really fanatics about lin/u/nix.

I liked the OS2 that I had on a bunch of monitors at the prisons, myself.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:03:14 -0700, GregP wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
>> desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
>> Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
>> under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
>> employers' product(s).
>
> A lot of them are real-time applications running on hardware with
> constrained memory, so that's understandable. Linux is beginning
> to make inroads here.
>

We are (I am) abandoning VxWorks in favor of the 2.6 kernel for a large
project where the real time demands are more relaxed and our memory space is
large. In my case the wealth of networking options and support base for
communications far outweigh the more deterministic nature of former embedded
standards like VxWorks (who are adopting Linux for just this reason 8^).

-Bruce

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message

> Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me,
some
> time ago. :)

Well, I figured that you knew something I didn't - not that you don't know
plenty that I don't :) - but if I am not mistaken, you have always been
able to disable the Java VM, at least since it was included in the recent
versions of IE.

> Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
> throat. <wry grin>

Can't argue with that ...

>
> I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
> rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
> talking about" in that regard.

Morale: I've learned to be careful about what someone who "knew what they're
talking about" told be if I didn't know the answer first myself,
particularly from my "networking peers" who "don't do MSFT". ;>)

That said ... MSFT "says" that you can disable JavaScript, and I believe
that you actually can in the latest version ... but, like you I don't
believe a damn thing they say and always want to test/verify each iteration
to make sure they aren't just blowing smoke.

swingman ... who is plenty sick and tired of applying seemingly endless MSFT
security patches to upwards of 30 boxes a month, and dreads seeing the
latest "Microsoft Security Bulletin" arrive ... the one last week had SEVEN
"critical" patches that needed to be applied!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Pat Barber" wrote in message
> Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????
>
> and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
> utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???

How about starting in 1988 with David Cutler and his team's first iteration
of Windows NT, and for real, circa 1993, with the release of NT 3.1 to the
public?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that,
thanks
> to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like
I
> did in 1979.

You'd could'a gone with WANG... :)

"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message

> I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.

<snip>

Do you know what the word "dedicated" meant in the computer business at that
place and time?

If, as it appear, you are reading what you wanted to hear (or argue about)
into what was actually said, don't bother wasting your time trying to get a
rise when it comes to OS bashing.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????

I been in this computer crapolla for quite a few years
myself and which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
is the "standard version" ????

and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???



Mike Marlow wrote:


>>But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
> Unix.
>

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message


> Does current MSIE provide *two* options -- one for disabling Java, and a
> second one for disabling JavaScript?

Yes ... Security tab/Scripting.

> My sympathies.
>
> Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
> a 32-bit graphical interface for
> a 16-bit extension to
> an 8-bit operating system for
> a 4-bit processor, written by
> a 2-bit company, without
> 1 bit of common sense.

Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that, thanks
to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like I
did in 1979.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>>
>> Probably _better_ software, too...
>>
>But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

Since when has MickeySoft ever cared about standards?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
> >
> > Probably _better_ software, too...
> >
>
> But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>
>

Unix.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Pat Barber wrote:

> Ummmm... Unix is "standard" ????
>
> I been in this computer crapolla for quite a few years
> myself and which of the just over 200 variants of Unix
> is the "standard version" ????

I'd be willing to go with any/all for which I can write, compile,
link, and run programs in C89 (with POSIX.1 extensions), though a
C99 [ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)] compiler would be nice...

> and while I'm at it.... just when did a collection of
> utility programs called Windows get to be a OS ???

Now be fair -- *nix isn't very far from being a collection of
utilities itself (although there's worlds of difference in quality.)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

See my comments about W/XXXX from an earlier statement.

Let's see:

The largest number of midrange computers in the world
are running OS/400, which will also run Unix,AIX,Linux
and Windows as "guests" all at the same time.

AIX(another Unix) is installed in about a billion systems
strung all over the world.(even the famous Flea-Bay)

MVS is running most/all of the major mainframes in the
world. That little OS has been around since 1970's and
only god knows what the current version is...

I don't recall any of the "other" folks like
RCA,Data General,Honeywell Bull,Digital,GE,etc are
still around.....(I left out many dead companies)

Besides, this is NOT a computer forum and we need to move
right along to somthing wood related ????




Dave Hinz wrote:


> Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well, but...can you
> name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:45:20 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:47:43 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
>>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>>> >>
>>> >> Probably _better_ software, too...
>>> >
>>> > But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?
>>>
>>> Sure, it's called Unix. Everything except Windows uses it.
>>
>> Well, hardly <everything>... :)
>
>Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well, but...can you
>name a current major computing platform that isn't Unix, other than Windows?
>
Tandem. Used largely for mission-critical applications where downtime is
intolerable, such as most of the world's major stock exchanges, a substantial
fraction of telephone switching equipment and ATM networks, and an awful lot
of hospitals. Spent over 20 years of my IS career working with Tandem
equipment. MAN! but it's nice to work on a machine that never goes down.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article <[email protected]>,
Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>Do you still claim that MSFT was the reason for cheap software?
>I believe that prices would have dropped anyway.

They were already dropping without Microsoft's influence. Just as a data
point, an Apple ][ running something like Bank Street Writer or Appleworks
was significantly less than $5K even in the early-mid 80's. Microsoft's
only role in the Apple ][ machines was as a supplier of AppleSoft BASIC.
(When the Apple's license for AppleSoft expired, Microsoft then took the
license renewal fee out of Apple's hide...)

Prior to all this, CP/M machines running things like WordStar were much
less costly than more institutional word processors, even back in the
70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price is
cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to spend
individually, I suspect).

-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com

On 15 Feb 2005 02:30:42 GMT, Bruce Barnett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, there was CP/M and DR-DOS.

Have you use Concurrent DOS, Multitasking and Multiuser DOS also by DR-DOS in
the eighties?

>Windows was layered on top of DS, and many people wanted to replace
>DOS with DR-DOS because of it's advanced features.
>
>But Microsoft illegally put hooks in their OS to detect Dr-DOS and
>refuse to work if found. So the company went bankrupt. And when
>Microsoft started making 90% profit, and abusing their monopolistic
>power (they WERE convicted, remember), it was hard for any competitor
>to catch up.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
>> a 32-bit graphical interface for
>> a 16-bit extension to
>> an 8-bit operating system for
>> a 4-bit processor, written by
>> a 2-bit company, without
>> 1 bit of common sense.
>
> It may be correct, but did the author have a better OS? I love it
> when programmers complain about MS but have never taken the time to
> make a better OS or program.

Well, since we neither know who the original author was, nor what
your definition of "better" is, that's a hard question to answer.

For some values of "better", tho, Windows doesn't come out looking
too good. Most any programmer will point to any of the Unixy OS's,
especially Linux, and say they're better than Windows, for stability
and freedom from security issues (but they are in general harder to
learn to use, altho newish products like Knoppix are making life on
that side a lot easier). Many other people will suggest the Mac OS
and GUI are much easier to use, as well as being more stylish (tho
the older Mac OS had most of the same stability & security issues
as Windows, in part because Window's design paradigm was "make it
like the Mac).

John

I am very suspicious. I am in the process of starting up a small
woodworking business. I figure I can learn from anyone (even if I have to
disregard 95% or what I am told). So when I went to download, Explorer
started acting real goofy and I never downloaded anything (that I know of).
So I am off to update Norton definitions and run a system scan.
Just beware.
Rob
Through the golden door our children can walk into tomorrow with the
knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America.
~Ronald W. Reagan
"Sev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Check this out - good info if you're thinking of starting a business:
>
> http://free.profitfromwood.com/
>
> Enjoy!
> Sev
>

"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message
> In article <
> Swingman <wrote:
> >"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message
> >
> >> 70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price
is
> >> cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to
spend
> >> individually, I suspect).
> >
> >You left out "compatible and interchangeable" to describe the hardware,
and
> >a ubiquitous OS, love it or hate it, without which none of it would have
> >happened when it did.
>
> Those things pre-date Microsoft. The Apple ][ is probably the first
> mainstream example in the PC field. IBM System/360 is probably the first
> example in computing, in general.
>
> Microsoft, however, has been the best advocate of this strategy and by far
> the biggest beneficiary.

Actually, I had a valid, and authorized, senior moment when I was trying to
remember the terminology for the real impetus, IMO, in the advent of the
personal computer a la "cheaper hardware": "non-proprietary" hardware.
Something Apple has certainly never been guilty of, and certainly not IBM in
the 360 series, which was not "personal computing" by any yardstick.

But, I may well have wrongly assumed that the discussion was about the PC
and its hardware/software/OS.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Ahhhhh the good old days... The Displaywriter took over
from the "Mag Card Composer", which was a IBM Selectric
with mag storage and other fancy features... It went
for well over 10K as I recall.


Swingman wrote:

>
> Nope, this was a few years before the IBM PC. The word processor itself was
> dedicated and called the "IBM DisplayWriter". It was about the only word
> processor, other than the Wang, available for mid-size company level word
> processing toward the late 70's, still very much the heyday of the IBM
> Selectric typewriter.
>
> Secretaries had to go to school on it, and software updates and _mandatory_
> maintenance agreements brought the initial, _upfront_ price to over $18,000
> with all the bells and whistles ... I remember vividly because t'was I who
> wrote the check.
>
> IBM had a stranglehold on the market that made the MSFT of today look
> benign by comparison. Basically, if you're too young to have spent years
> banging on a typewriter in college, or as part of your job, you're arguably
> missing a big part of the perspective necessary to make the comparison
> between the companies, leading to that all too familiar propensity to bash,
> mainly from those who got into the game after 1981, when the PC was
> introduced.
>

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:39:17 -0600, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
>> Right. This also doesn't address the embedded computing in an amazing
>> nubmer of devices (cars, appliances, sewing machines, etc etc etc),
>> but even those you'll find a lot of 'doze and Unix in.
>
> The embedded market in terms of numbers of cpu's is far larger than the
> desktop market (as you may well know). Last numbers I recall from
> Embedded Systems Programming survey of embedded developers something
> under 10% were using either of those as an OS for their or their
> employers' product(s).
>
> Large number of user interfaces are going that way though simply as
> course of least resistance...

Different market entirely.

Embedded systems range from 4-bit microcontrollers, FPGAs to MIPS and
PowerPCs . . not so much Intel chips 'cuz the power consumption is HUGE.

TI used to sell their compilers to run under UNIX, but they made a huge
move to CodeComposer Studio, which is really only happy under Windows.

VxWorks sells their development tools to run on most everything for the
low low price of around $50k/seat. But if you need vxWorks, you REALLY
need vxWorks.

Interesting side note: A big "microcontroller" is the Zilog Z-80 and
its descendents. They sell around 200Million of them a year for a buck
or so apiece. I learned to program on the Z-80-based TRS-80 Model 3
that had a WHOPPING 48k of RAM.

"MSCHAEF.COM" wrote in message

> 70's. The big driving force of all of this downward movement in price is
> cheaper hardware and consequently larger markets (with less money to spend
> individually, I suspect).

You left out "compatible and interchangeable" to describe the hardware, and
a ubiquitous OS, love it or hate it, without which none of it would have
happened when it did.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Dave Hinz wrote:

> Right, there are mainframe computers these days as well,
> but...can you name a current major computing platform that
> isn't Unix, other than Windows?

Stratus' VOS. Though last I heard Stratus was considering a Linux
port. Not sure if they made that decision or not.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

In article <[email protected]>, George <george@least> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >If Microsoft never existed, we would still have cheap software.
>>
>> Probably _better_ software, too...
>>
>
>But would we have a standardized operating system to run it?

I'm not so sure about a standard OS, but I am pretty sure we'd have a
standard set of API's and a standard binary format. (Or at least OS's that
tolerated multiple API's and binary formats)

-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com

"Swingman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Yep ... seen that, can't disagree for the most part ... except that, thanks
> to MSFT, I no longer have to pay $18,000 to IBM for a word processor like I
> did in 1979.

Word Perfect was THAT much?
And MicroSoft wrote it?

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.