***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just writting
an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users, and some food
for thought for everyone. I think that even though this is a general post it
is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am sure
lots of people would like to read this point of view.

A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800 powerful
computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be?

If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.

Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using computers in
an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed computers from a thing
only
super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a thing any
person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and hardware,
created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies, and
the expansion of the internet to what we have now.

Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer revolution.
Thousands of computers were installed in businesses, homes, schools and
everyone
started using them.

Windows created all this foundation that we have today.

Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
internet, and computer literate community
and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS. THIS HAS
NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.

If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used windows,
the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be smaller,
less people would be using computers, less people would be designing
hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind... and 10
years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.

So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it more
cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a negative
cost...
meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
possibilities that would never exist without it.
In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology that
was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was possible.

Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on top of a
unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement of
technologies we have today.

I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me saying
that I was stupid because I used windows.
I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that position.


Kenny.

kenny wrote:

Actually, "windows" was invented by Xerox and implemented by Apple.
Microsoft *stole* it. When I bought the first Mac, Windows wasn't even
available yet. All you had was DOS.

Alias

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

Kenny

Not unlike many fringe groups, Linux aficionados feel the need to surface
every now and again to proclaim themselves.. people 'in the know' recognise
that there is a place for all OS'es, all of them having individual
attributes that make them perfect for use in a particular sector of the IT
community.. the concept of one being better than all of the others in all
scenarios is ridiculous..

Nearer the truth is the fact that many just like to get on the 'We hate Bill
G and Microsoft' bandwagon.. it gives these people a unified cause,
something to whine about.. I would imagine that some have 'personality'
problems, difficulty fitting into mainstream society..

Best way is to ignore them.. they won't go away of course, but lack of
response to their rants and name calling often sees them dip below the
surface quite rapidly.. if there was no Linux, it would be something else..
MacOS vs Windows was always an old favourite, and still is for some..
however, Linux runs on cheap x86 architecture, so has become much more
available to the fringe than MacOS..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


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

kenny wrote:
This takes the prize as the weirdest, most convoluted, illogical reasoning
I've ever read. By your reasoning we should all be driving Fords as Henry
Ford popularised automobiles and everything since is a ripoff of his idea.
What becomes popular is often not the most innovative or even the best
product but one that works good enough and has the best marketing. Usually
the most popular products are based on someone else's work, refined, and
then marketed better than what came before. Windows fits this model. Linux
at some point may.

The computer revolution was well on it's way before Microsoft. IBM was
negotiating with Digital Research for an OS which in many respects was
better than MS-DOS. If things had gone that way we may be much further ahead
now. Technology would have progressed with or without Microsoft.

I agree somewhat with your last paragraph. Many Linux zealots are irrational
in their support of Linux and can be very annoying. Why not just ignore them
and get on with using Windows if that's what you prefer.

Kerry

Kerry, Kenny

An interesting article for you..

http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:Ocfbv9CIGHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
I used and loved OS/2 up to and including OS/2 warp version 3. It was light
years ahead of Windows at the time. It proves my contention that the best
often doesn't become the most popular and that marketing has more to do with
popularity than technical superiority. IBM didn't market OS/2 right so it
didn't get 3rd party support. Part of this is due to Microsoft forcing pc
manufacturer's to pay for their OS even if another one was installed and
MS-DOS wasn't even supplied with the machine. The legality and morality of
this tactic can be debated but it is superior marketing. Another problem
with OS/2 was public perception at the time. Microsoft was actually viewed
by many as the little guy fighting the established monopoly (IBM).
Microsoft's monopolistic marketing practices were just starting to come to
public notice.

Kerry

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:OOlI2cDIGHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Worse than Microsoft's licensing tactic was IBM's refusal to allow
clone-makers to ship their clones with an IBM operating system
pre-installed. IBM only allowed true blue IBM systems to ship with their
true blue operating system.

carl

kenny wrote:
<snip>

You may not be a troll, but since you feed them by responding to them,
that makes you worse than a troll.

--
capitan

Text Stephen wrote:
When did you last try a distro? Modern distros like Ubuntu install FAR
quicker than windows and have ALL the drivers for most hardware right off
the CD

If it's "sensible" about windows then the sensible posters in COLA will be
alright. What they don't like is people spreading downright lies about Linux
which is what is usually done by the likes of "Kenny".

Ubuntu is VERY easy to use. If you put a novice Windows user in front of an
Ubuntu machine, they find it very hard to tell the difference.


And MS has NEVER copied any code or applications? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And without the "bloat" of MS programs that would have been a very true
possibility. Code writers in the old "640k RAM" days had to write very slick
apps to get them to work. The ONLY result of the huge increases in RAM is
the HUGE increases in slack programming.

So why then, are more and more countries and organisations turning to Open
Source Software?

At the time, IBM could not see that the clones would take over.. they
persisted in making expensive MCA machines that used equally expensive MCA
expansion cards and, as another said, they didn't want to market OS/2 lessen
it was installed on a machine that few could afford other than the
corporates.. it was all just too proprietary..

As the sales of the Intel/Microsoft clones rose sharply and with the advent
of Intel's PCI plug n play abilities, OS/2 and MCA slowly committed
themselves to obscurity, not because they were no good, but purely because
the unfolding market for computers was not prepared to pay the price.. MCA
technology was way ahead of it's time, and is still used in some of the
RS/6000 machines..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User


"Vagabond Software" <vagabondsw-X-@-X-gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eEepRqDIGHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

kenny wrote:

<snip's the drivel>

No, you just like to read your words. At the least put OT as the first
item in the subject line.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

kenny wrote:
This whole OS argument is nothing more than spin. Especially your
statement
about how stupid can a person be.
The only advantage of using windows is that there are more people to ask
how
to do something.
The disadvantage of using windows is the expense. $150 for the OS, $400
for
the office suite, $50 for the financial software, and I don't know how
much for
AV, Spyware, adware to keep the gremlins out.
I have experienced the truth that the learning curve from windows to
Xandros
Linux was no more of a curve than going from 3.x to W95 or from W98 to
XP.

Vagabond Software wrote:
Actually you could buy OEM PC-DOS and retail OS/2 and install them on
clones. I sold quite a few systems with OEM PC-DOS. It was priced the same
as MS-DOS but had a built in anti-virus. I believe MS still got a license
fee from IBM but I could purchase both for the same price. I even sold a few
with OS/2 retail version as the only OS installed. As I remember it wasn't
that much more expensive than MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 at the time.

Kerry

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eDh$P$EIGHA.2896@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Yes, but Compaq and Zeos could NOT do that. I was reselling their systems
and once I got a taste of OS/2 Warp, I called them about having it
pre-installed on their systems and representatives for both told me that IBM
does not license OS/2 to OEM clone-makers.

Now, I agree that I could go out and buy the stuff retail, fdisk the clone,
and install the OS I wanted. However, the problem, at least according to
the OEM clone-makers I talked to was not Microsoft licensing but rather the
lack of licensing from IBM.

carl

Text Stephen wrote:
You are worse than many of the Linux zealots. The last I heard Microsoft
lost when they were "dragged" through the court system.

Kerry

"kenny" <nope@at.all> wrote in message
news:OOFZsICIGHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
: ***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just
writting
: an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users, and some food
: for thought for everyone. I think that even though this is a general post
it
: is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am sure
: lots of people would like to read this point of view.
:
: A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800 powerful
: computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
: Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
: computers, calling them stupid.
:
: How blind can a person be?
:
: If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
: you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.
:
: Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using computers
in
: an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed computers from a thing
: only
: super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a thing
any
: person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
: Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and
hardware,
: created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies, and
: the expansion of the internet to what we have now.
:
: Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
: Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer
revolution.
: Thousands of computers were installed in businesses, homes, schools and
: everyone
: started using them.
:
: Windows created all this foundation that we have today.
:
: Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
: internet, and computer literate community
: and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS. THIS
HAS
: NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
: As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
: windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
: are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.
:
: If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used
windows,
: the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be smaller,
: less people would be using computers, less people would be designing
: hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
: less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind... and
10
: years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.
:
: So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it more
: cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a negative
: cost...
: meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
: possibilities that would never exist without it.
: In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology that
: was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was possible.
:
: Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on top of
a
: unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
: But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement of
: technologies we have today.
:
: I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me
saying
: that I was stupid because I used windows.
: I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that position.
:
:
: Kenny.

Agreed Kenny, and in a corporate-business sense as well. In a previous
vocation (not loo long ago), we were contemplating a Linux desktop server
network system do reduce the cost of software purchases. In a company of up
to 300 workstations and 11 servers I went on my merry way costing up the out
lay and was given permission to install Linux on 7 workstaions and one
(bogus) Linux server to try it all out.

In terms of price, you bet you'll practically pay nothing for Linux (except
RedHat was a bit pricey). In terms of getting the network happening... Well
it happenned but took a lot longer than a Windows network set up, that could
of just been me but, that wasn't our worry. When I was costing support, I
thought (I mean I know) MS is on the crapper, but Linux support made both me
and my boss crap non-stop in disbelief. I've had cheaper girlfriends than
that! Not one cheap, one of the biggest offenders in price for support was
IBM and the biggest rip off was Sun whom offered support for RH Linux even
though they've got there own Unix Flavours.

Well that little project got canned and the company ain't going off MS
Windows. I personally have used Linux (SuSE) less and less as time goes on.
It's a good fast OS that takes alot less resources to install on and run
well on, I really like on on installation you can mount "special" folders on
specific drives (I wish Windows could do that) but it just doesn't keep up
on all (even superficial) techonogies that comes with this industry, like
DOOM III.

....and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of
functionailty, bloat, ease of development and, employee familiarity with the
product.

- Winux P

I never said the best becomes the most popular.
I never said that windows was original.. please read my post again.

Why something in technology evolves and continues to exist, is very
similar to how evolution works in biology. There are many factors at play.
But windows got the combination right, and thats why its all around!

Or do you deny this simple fact I am stating with all my original post?



"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:Ocfbv9CIGHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Captain.. I dont suppost you imagine yourself upon a starship or anything?

Why are you responding then to me who you claim that I am worst than a
troll,
doesnt that make you worse that somebody worse than a troll?
Or troll in the power of 3.

:-)


"capitan" <c@pi.tan> wrote in message
news:OKbf5IEIGHA.2928@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Winux P wrote:
Umm BLOAT? In OPEN OFFICE? Are you plain 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?
Have you actually USED Open Office 2? It does almost EXACTLY the same as MS
Office 2002. 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.
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.
And in fact OO 2 has functions which Office 2003 does not have - like export
to PDF built-in.

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