Page 3 of 7
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:08 pm
by JPG
rjent wrote:Great thread. I have been in IT for over 30 years starting out in CP/M in the 80's and working up? from there. Bill Gates really built a model that was designed to make him money, in my opinion. When he obsoleted Windows 2000 as an example, a great NT platform that was very stable, and forced XP on the market, which was just a prettier interface to 2000 he forced everyone to "upgrade" by dropping "support" (.net changes no longer being available etc), to have to buy something else yet again, from Microsoft. His whole model of business has been planned obsolescence since DOS. Now, with that said, there is a natural progression of improvement that is going to happen, these machines have become so incredible, our desktops can compete with the billion dollar Cray of just a decade or so ago in computing power. The bugaboo (technical term
) is that the obsolescence wasn't necessary, the "improvements" could have been seamless and secure. It is all about resale and the bottom line. The other problem, and one that I had to deal with, was function in the real world. We had to develop software for the organizations we supported and the only way to do that, was to use the Microsoft platforms. That is still true today. I hope Linux eventually takes over. It is a far better OS, but less forgiving and harder to understand with it's cryptic approach of user interface. I think that will continue to change over time. I hope so!
Anyway, JMHO
Having traversed the early parts of that journey myself, I recall(When IBM was in the driver's seat[almost]), that backward compatibility was paramount. The 'selling points' were new function(mainly to support new hardware [disk drives] etc.)
Sadly with the micro-channel architecture decision and the IBM developed OS, Bill Gates was given a free pass to do as he saw fit with DOS and windows.
Not to find fault with Bill Gates, IBM had been doing the same for years with the main frames.
Remember the PC was a maverick operation within IBM. If the movie was accurate, the first mistake was continueing Gates rights to DOS rather than buying it outright.
Wonder how the guy that sold it to Gates feels today?(movie again).
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:20 pm
by heathicus
This movie?
I watched it again a few months ago.
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:50 pm
by JPG
heathicus wrote:This movie?
I watched it again a few months ago.
P.S. Also the scene where Jobs walks in to HP.
I do not recall the movie title, but maybe! Interesting meeting with bankers, dumping a prototype in the trash afterward, Gates screaming "why does it not work". As a former somewhat ducky(old time IBM folks will understand) IBMer, I was quite amused at the "Software is not important, Hardware is what counts" line in response to Gates insisting on retaining rights to DOS. IIUC CPM(and UCSD) were IBM's thinking re OS for the PC.
Pcode - Bleech!:eek:
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:55 pm
by rjent
JPG40504 wrote:Having traversed the early parts of that journey myself, I recall(When IBM was in the driver's seat[almost]), that backward compatibility was paramount. The 'selling points' were new function(mainly to support new hardware [disk drives] etc.)
Sadly with the micro-channel architecture decision and the IBM developed OS, Bill Gates was given a free pass to do as he saw fit with DOS and windows.
Not to find fault with Bill Gates, IBM had been doing the same for years with the main frames.
Remember the PC was a maverick operation within IBM. If the movie was accurate, the first mistake was continueing Gates rights to DOS rather than buying it outright.
Wonder how the guy that sold it to Gates feels today?(movie again).
Bill Gates and Microsoft developed very little in actuality. Dos was an OS that was bought from a geek in Washington state, BASIC was a public domain language developed by a educational institution, Visual Foxpro and the Visual studio components were rehashes of mostly known public domain languages (DBase, Foxpro's roots, was another public domain language that was "stolen") Excel was a rewrite of the ever popular Visicalc (I even wrote a SS program using a compiled basic just for the hell of it
), and I could go on. The registry, mentioned before, was developed to implement more control over proprietary software. etc etc.
Bill was a pitch man that makes Barnum look like Mother Teresa
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:33 pm
by heathicus
Here's a few clips from Pirates Of Silicon Valley:
The Microsoft deal with IBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfgRf2A0Tc
Steve Jobs taking the GUI concept from Xerox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u70CgBr-OI
Gates and the Microsoft crew visits Apple and Steve Jobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG4DvM0wxdk
It's a very dramatized and condensed movie. And it's kind of cheesy, but I still find it very enjoyable. Maybe only because I'm into this kind of thing. If you haven't seen it, check it out.
And just because I stumbled onto it looking for those clips, here's a bonus video demonstration of the Xerox Star operating system that Steve Jobs stole from and which Bill Gates stole from him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4vC80Pv6Q
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:59 pm
by JPG
rjent wrote:Bill Gates and Microsoft developed very little in actuality. Dos was an OS that was bought from a geek in Washington state, BASIC was a public domain language developed by a educational institution, Visual Foxpro and the Visual studio components were rehashes of mostly known public domain languages (DBase, Foxpro's roots, was another public domain language that was "stolen") Excel was a rewrite of the ever popular Visicalc
(I even wrote a SS program using a compiled basic just for the hell of it ), and I could go on. The registry, mentioned before, was developed to implement more control over proprietary software. etc etc.
Bill was a pitch man that makes Barnum look like Mother Teresa
I have several that I run(and modify/compile) often(one a pos terminal runs 24/7).
Yes the hardware is old also!
I never learned/obtained visual basic so windows is not an available path.
I need XP to continue to run "msdos" rather than "cmd".
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:55 pm
by rjent
JPG40504 wrote:I need XP to continue to run "msdos" rather than "cmd".
I hear you brother, and you are not alone. MS has wanted to get rid of the Command Prompt for a long time ....
I have a MSDOS machine, a TRSDOS machine, and a CP/M machine running and use on occasion ..... just because I can!
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:31 pm
by garys
Just another good reason to use Linux instead of Window. Linux has DOS emulation so it can run your DOS programs.
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:03 pm
by lightnin
A big problem I've had is updated drivers for the new OS
I quit buying anything HP they never make updated drivers they want you to buy a new printer.
I admit it's been years since I've shopped for printers when I did last it was because a new windows would not run my HP printer.
I googled "printer driver update" I found Epson had a lot of them so I choose them with hopes they would have an update when the time came.
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:06 pm
by rjent
garys wrote:Just another good reason to use Linux instead of Window. Linux has DOS emulation so it can run your DOS programs.
You are right, but there are some problems I won't go into. Some legal implications, some functional. As an IT shop and software developer, I was really forced to run Windows platforms for many of my customers. My development language(s), many times were the culprit for that need. Now that I am retired from that nightmare LOL I will definitely change platforms. Like I said, I have many OS's and hardware platforms to work with and I can develop my own SW. Bye Bye Bill!