Today kenny commented courteously on the subject at hand

don't much like Bill, I guess...

hmmm. always thought Bill stole this from the Apple Lisa/Mac,
with some heavy borrowing from the old Xerox Star, first
computer with a GUI and a mouse.

Unix grew up on computers larger, more powerful, and 100X as
expensive as PCs, known as "workstations". Now, if you'd said
Linus was loosely derived from how Unix "works", I'd agree.
Some. There's no standard for Unix anymore, just an arcane
command line that hardware manufacturers put a GUI on for all
but the IT folks.



--
ATM, aka Jerry

Today Mike Hall (MS-MVP) commented courteously on the subject
at hand

If IBM had written the contract Bill Gates wrote, which had a
clause buried in 150 pages saying he could sell DOS himself,
there also wouldn't have been any clones. Or, had IBM done what
Apple did and not publish the specs for their first PC, there
wouldn't have been any clones.

But, then, too, IBM would actually be /less/ wealthy, as they
eventually profited from the decision to open up their machines,
even if it were painful for quite a while.

Ah, yes, O/S 2...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

in other words OO is a rip of of MS office?
So we aggree?

LOL


"Gordon" <gordon@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:OOk9F$GIGHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Gordon" <gordon@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:OOk9F$GIGHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: Winux P wrote:
: >
: > ...and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of
: > functionailty, bloat, ease of development and, employee familiarity
: > with the product.
:
: Umm BLOAT? In OPEN OFFICE?

No read it properly idiot.
"...and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of ..,
bloat.."
Are you plain bonkers? No but you exceptionally bonkers.

MS Office 2003 Professional on my XP machine takes up 402MB. Open Office 2
on the same
: machine - 202 MB. Which one, in your opinion, is bloat?

MS Office like I said idiot.

: Have you actually USED Open Office 2? Yes
: It does almost EXACTLY the same as MS Office 2002. So What!

: As an Advanced Excel user, Open Office is almost IDENTICAL to Excel 2002.
In fact they even LOOK the same, so you CAN'T have used it.
Can you pull yourself elsewhere?

: Anyone who can use MS Office 2002 can very easily use Open Office 2. There
is no more learning curve involved than going from Office 2002 to Office
: 2003.
So which more popular and which is more expensive?

: And in fact OO 2 has functions which Office 2003 does not have - like
export to PDF built-in.

So which more popular and which is more expensive?

- Winux P

IBM wrote the contract.. They had no idea that the PC would take off like it
did.. they expected to sell a few thousand and that would be that.. BG was
given all of the rights because IBM didn't consider that it would amount to
much.. it was not long before IBM licensed out manufacture because they
could not keep up with demand..

In the early days, all producers of the PC's, IBM and the IBM 'clone'
manufacturers could afford to make proprietary stuff.. but Microsoft Windows
3.0 and the cheaper Intel based clones (the PCs with 5 pin DIN keyboard
sockets and serial mice) broke the mould as they marketed specifically at
home users and small offices who couldn't afford the 'corporate' machines of
the original makers..

OK.. so Microsoft encouraged the cheap clone producers to pre-install the
OS, but they were not the only company doing this.. Lotus took a shot at it
by offering cut down SmartSuite as an Office option, and they did ok until
MS released their Office products which, with all respect, were more
accomplished.. pre-installing also gave 'value added' to the PC
manufacturers, and meant that home users could run the computers straight
out of the box.. everybody won back then..

Of course, sales would not continue at break neck speed for ever, and as the
downs hit, some companies gave up or took advantage of being bought out by
the big players.. lets face it, if you or I had a small software or hardware
company, and somebody like MS came and offered us more money than we could
reasonably imagine, we would sell out, yes?..

At the end of the day, the best won out.. Lotus Office products were not
exactly integrating too well, being a mish mash of bought in items, and
WordPerfect's first attempt at a Windows version was quite honestly dire and
buggy..

Bill Gates and MS had much better marketing skills than the opposition, and
put more effort into software production than the others.. in the end, only
IBM were large enough to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM could care less
whether they sold software or not.. now they are trying to fight back with
Linux.. hahahahaha..

IBM R&D is beyond reproach, but talk about leading from behind in every
other field.. past masters, and they continue to be..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"All Things Mopar" <nunofyour@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns9754B871B8EF2ReplyID@216.196.97.131...

Check your history, Microsoft bought Windows from Xerox

Alias wrote:
Check your history, Microsoft bought Windows from Xerox. They did not
steel it.

Kerry Brown wrote:

Lenard Lund wrote:
It was slower than DOS and Windows 3.1. It was faster than Windows 95 on the
same hardware. It was harder to find drivers for hardware and harder to
install the the drivers than Windows. Once setup and running on comaptible
hardware it was a very secure multi-tasking OS. It is still more secure than
Windows XP and multi-tasks about as well as XP. For it's time it was one of
the easier OS' to install. It was easier to install than Windows NT, Xenix,
Unix, etc. all reasonably comparable for security but no where near as easy
to use. If you grew up on Windows it was different and therefore had a
learning curve to overcome.

Kerry

Kerry

kenny wrote:
Re-reading your original post and your replies in this thread I can only
come to one of two conclusions. 1) You're a troll or 2) You don't express
your opinions very well. While Windows has had a large influence on how
computer technology has developed it can easily be argued that Windows and
Microsoft have actually hindered that development. The fact that Windows is
popular is because of marketing and luck. I'm not bashing Windows. I use it
daily. I prefer it over other OS'. That doesn't mean I'm blind to it's
faults or history. You are starting to sound like the Linux zealots you
profess to despise.

Kerry

Why? cant you have windows only and then free applications running on it?
There is freeware for almost everything! More choice for windows than you
have for linux! And yes there are free AVs and spyware.. you name it!

Oh yeah? How about telling those people on the learning curve to
fishout programs from the internet that can be installed on that machine and
install them? There is a distro package chaos out there! Dependancy
nightmares!
How about finding and installing a driver for a hardware that
the installation does not have at the begining. How about repairing a
problem
after it occures.....?? Hmmmm????

In windows at least you have system restore that fixes most of the problems
in a
few mouse clicks!

Its fine when the sit them in front of a box that has been prepared for them
and there is a tech beside them all the time,
take that out to the real world, on a global scale and its chaos!

HA!!!!!!!!!!


"Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:%23eFRCLHIGHA.3700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

kenny wrote:
Rubbish. Now I KNOW you are either a troll or a total dimbo. There are FAR
more apps written for Linux than Windows. My edition of Ubuntu comes with
over *FIVE**THOUSAND* free apps.

Winux P wrote:
OK I misread that. It was quite late!
Eh? A very cryptic reply if I must say.

What has that got to do with the ease of use?

Your record is stuck. Change it.

well who said you know much about software?


"Gordon" <gordon@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:u$lxBBMIGHA.604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

Really who cares who came first? I believe Pioneer was one of the first
consumer electronics and where is that? The issue here is stability. And
many say that the Windows Platform is inherently unstable. I agree with some
of that but any op sys made for the lowest common denominator has an uphill
climb in the area of stability. What may make Linux more stable is the level
of expertise of the user more so than the inherent attributes of the op sys.

So let the Linux user have their day in the sun. It really says nothing
about about which product is best nay more so which user is most
knowledgable. And Windows was developed for the neophyte not the expert.
Windows is a Consumer product Linux really is not at this point.

--

George Hester
_________________________________
"kenny" <nope@at.all> wrote in message
news:OOFZsICIGHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Text Stephen wrote:
Gordon has much more constructive posts to this thread than you.

--
capitan

Text Stephen wrote:
Only because the original post was SO full of total and absolute b*****ks
that it had to be replied to.

Today Mike Hall (MS-MVP) commented courteously on the subject
at hand

in the 19th and early 20th centuries, BG's practices would
have been decried as those of a "robber baron", and TR
would've done his "trust buster" thing back then.



--
ATM, aka Jerry

Ok well this is a topic for loosers. Windows does control 95% of the market.
80% of windows since "ME" were all downloaded free from websites from third
world countries.

Linux is free and it is improving. But it will never be where windows is
now.

Windows needs to find better way to distribute thir software and write code.
I have recently become a Mac user and I am not going back anymore. MacIntel
new pc's are great and one reason,

You guys ever here of a Zombie comptuer. (look it up) the only reason
people(experst and beginners) will switch to Linux-FreeBSD-OpenSolaris-and
Mac is that its is lot more difficult for these OS to become a Zombie pc.

Well I work at this local PC-repair shop and untill i see someone bring a pc
with other then Windows to the store, I will support anything and everything
other then Windows.

OH Text dude,

you should look up more information. over the past year our costumers
switched from Win users with problems to other OS has gone up 250% with most
people switching to Mac. so keep on dreaming in you fantasy world and
thinking you are the best. Go to search and look up poeple switching from
Win to other os. Most people are dual booting to learn.

LOL

"Text Stephen" wrote:

*Kenny*

There is a user friendly version of Linux, get yer facts straight. Its
called Mandriva (or Debian, SuSe, Slackware) - any of those are fuser
friendly. And the reason we rip stuff off Windows is the fact that windows
insist on making shedloads of money, selling us stuff which Linux gives us
for nothing. If Windows adopted a little of the Open Source Philosopy, and
let users help work out all the crud and things that go wrong with Windows,
rather than hiding all the code from us so we can't do squat, and we have to
leave it to the "devs" to sort out ptoblems, often getting things wrong, or
making them worse, maybe Windows would have more of a footing for Linux
users, and we wouldn't take the pee so much.

I have been on Linux for 5 years. I took to Linux overnight, after
suffering one to many major crashes with windows. Linux on the other hand,
Mandriva particularly, has been so reliable, I almost forgot what a Blue
Screen of Death looks like.

In short, Linux works. Windows - only works if it feels like it, crashes
more times than a videotape of a 747 going down (on loop), and has more bugs
than a sleazy back street apartment in harlem!

Sort out Windows, bring it to stability, charge us less for it and maybe,
just MAYBE, people will start coming back to Windows. When you can get it as
reliable and crash free as Linux, call me!

*Don't mess with the Penguin!*

"kenny" wrote:

penguinfreedom wrote:

I haven't had XP crash on me since I got it a couple of years ago, on
three machines.

Oops, I guess YOU, the user, didn't know what you were doing with XP.

Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.