----- Original Message ----- From: Gareth Knight &lt;gaz_k(a)lineone.net&gt; To: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Enough with the MS bashing, please I <snip> The idea behind writing a virus is to hit the *masses*, fast and hard. Windows is the most used client O/S by far. If DEC or Linux was used by everyone at home then considerable effort would have gone into making a virus for those platforms. Can you imagine someone wasting the time to write a virus for Atari or Amiga? It would infect what? 2 computers maybe? John

Well . . . just to add a bit of grist for the mill . . . I've got to agree, Microsoft is not perfect. However, I'm also forced, by grim experience, to point out that, while Microsoft's products, which were pointed out last week by one Harvard professor's comments on the progress of the current (misguided) lawsuit against them by the government, to have both 90+ % of the operating systems market, and to hold 90+ % of the office software market as well, they are not all they could be. I have to agree that I like the Microsoft products, and that's because, unlike the offerings of yesteryear, including those from Microsoft, the current generation does seem to work quite adequately to meet my requirements. Yes, there are features I'd probably appreciate, and there are features which cause annoyance from time to time, but, all in all, they seem to work. I'm often puzzled by the complaints about "crashes" under Win9x and NT. My notebook, running Win95, hasn't crashed, although it's been in almost constant use since early '97 when I bought it. Now, the machines into which I routinely stick cards that may or may not work, along with products that may or may not work, both hardware and software, . . . well, they have had other histories, but it's seldom Microsoft software that's to blame for that. These Microsoft products, notably the Win95 software and its Win98 successor, though not perfect, only cost about $100. The Office software costs about $400, though counterfeits of both are available for much less. The cost of the Office software is only a little more than what the venerable WORDSTAR for CP/M cost back in the '70's, and probably much less if one takes inflation into account. Frankly, there's little reason why anyone should complain in view of the cost, if nothing else. While you can find fault with this Microsoft stuff, you can't name a single OS that's provided as many of the features that people want in a form in which they can use it on the personal computer level. What's more, even CP/M cost more than Win9x. I've never bought a license for a DEC OS, but I doubt it cost under $100. There are Linux versions one can buy in ready-to-install form for under $100, but those will cost $1M, at least, at 50-cents-an-hour before they're working properly and that's only if you're a real *nix expert. What's more, NO *nix version offers the features that make the Win9x desirable for home computer use. There are lots of books out there for *nix users, but I've yet to see a "{insert vendor name here} Office for Dummies" book for LINUX, though I hear there is a "LINUX for Dummies" book out there. The issue of reliability can be argued almost forever, but it does seem to me that the "reliability" of a given system depends a great deal on how the system is being used, to wit, the relative stability of my notebook, which is used for little else than what the OS and Office software support. Of course I do use it to view document files on CD and to prepare overheads and other illustrations using an old version of CorelDRAW!. People have computers for different reasons. If some OS other than what's offered by Microsoft suits you better, e.g. OS/2, then it's likely that you should use that instead. If you prefer one of the many UNIX incarnations, that's your choice as well. However, for the mix of functionality and cost that the "average" home computer user wants and needs, Microsoft seems to have been right on the money. Their market share seems to underscore that point. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: &lt;technoid(a)cheta.net&gt; To: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' awful", is their products a >lot, I'm using Win 98SE right now, and our NT server has been running continuously for >about 4 years now, no crashes at all. OS-32, added

----- Original Message ----- From: John Wilson &lt;wilson(a)dbit.dbit.com&gt; To: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 10:36 Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' BIG LOUD APPLAUSE ! cheers, emanuel

Please see embedded comment(s) below. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: John Wilson &lt;wilson(a)dbit.dbit.comTo: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.orgSent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 10:36 AM Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' seem That's because use by nerds is seldom normal. You're right, it's not for nerds to play with, it's for normal everyday folks to use in doing useful work, not normally done by nerds. OTOH, there are systems, notably *NIX, intended for use by nerds and almost totally useless for useful work for a number of reasons. Keep in mind, however, that the Win9x stuff is written by nerds. That's why it does some things so awkwardly. These folks aren't required to do useful work with the tools they write. . . It's a shame, actually, and they should be required to work with it on a 1 MHz 386 with 8 MB ram and a 200 MB hard disk. Only after they've done a normal day's work should they be allowed to eat or go to the bathroom. This is because you're not installing your video driver correctly. It often means you must delete the driver that appears in "Device Manager" before proceeding. This is often a problem when W9x knows about several versions of the same hardware. That's also why they refer to the common installation mode as "lug-n-pray." It defaults to the lowest common denominator. If you then install the driver precisely written for your version of the hardware in question, it will work fine. If you're off, even by one bit, your're stuck with the lowest common denominator, however. I feel forced to point out that although the W9x isn't even near to being perfect, it's one heck of a lot better for the "average" home user than any version of *NIX or any other commercially offered OS. The half-day install for OS/2 (admittedly last attempted when OS/2 was new) would certainly discourage these "average" users. Moreover, Win9x wouldn't cost <$100 if it weren't for the fact that the "average" user buys a computer and the software he wants. Not only would Win9x not exist, but if it did exist in spite of the lack of home users, it would cost like VMS. The hardware would cost quite a bit more, too. replying to ] > For chrissake!!!!! > John Wilson > D Bit

Now, please take a look at my additional comments embedded below. I know they make this message long, but I dislike posting my remarks separately Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: &lt;jpero(a)cgocable.netTo: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.orgSent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:37 PM Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' fail nerds. It's the fact that the drooling masses have money that makes these computers cheap and ubiquitous. My experience with nerds would suggest that they believe that, but I don't. I've never experienced this before, but I'm having difficulty parsing this sentence. I'm inclined to agree, but that only applies to devices wherein NO provision for future growth is built in. I'm not familiar with the iopener, nor am I a particular fan of the way in which the "little" electronic notepads are made or used. Again, I'm more inclined to wait until a product has been proven entirely satisfactory before I'm inclined to buy another from the same vendor. Most of y MS stuff is free, so I can't complain. Frankly, I don't like the GUI. It has advantages, primarily in that it purportedly provides a monolithic structure for device drivers, thereby making a device accessible to all properly written applications. I liked things better when graphics happened only when you needed graphics, and the rest of the time the machine was strictly used from the command line. I can't agree with that! It's essentially a contradiction of what you've previously stated. Nevertheless, I'd say the the UNIX and others of that ilk were designed for use by and for nerds, from the standpoint that producing software is useful work. That's only true if you're a software vendor. If you're in the business of selling tires, or of making them, generating software is overhead that you'd like to avoid. IIRC, there were a couple of UNIX-like systems for the VAX, not to mention VMS, which was quite respectable, particularly for production tasks for which UNIX was considered most unsuitable. From the console, or farther away, it didn't look much different than UNIX. I've never liked things that said DIGITAL on them, hence never got too friendly with VMS. I think this goes back to the VERY ambitious attempt to establish a standard for Plug-n-Play, among other things. Unfortunately, when a committee tries to build a standard, it normally has lots of clauses and no teeth. Consequently, the Plug-n-Play became Plug-N-Pray. That's why the interrupt steering is different each time you go and fiddle with drivers, hardware, etc. It's almost by accident, and only by accident that I get through the installation of some video drivers. They always seem to "reach out and touch" something when least expected to do so. reliable about always the I've yet to see a respectable set of diagnostic software for the PC. With as much memory as most people are expected to have, I imagine a thorough diagnostic of read/write memory would take about 50 years. I've yet to see a diagnostic that's capable of detecting faulty external cache. Most of the diagnostic programs I have are incapable of testing current generation hardware. No matter what steps I take, the failures are always undetected until after the system is delivered. Software, likewise, seems to go largely untested throughout the industry. For several years, it was almost impossible to buy a backup utility for Win9x, because none of the available utilities would work. I tested several, as part of a contracted task, and found that one (then) major vendor's software wouldn't finish its task. Another would back-up, but wouldn't restore. There were lots of other problems, but I find it criminal that software vendors are allowed to sell products that don't work at all. I make it a practice to disable or even physically remove sound hardware. It uses three interrupts and two DMA's under worst-case conditions and I prefer my computers to be quiet. I keep one sound-equipped machine available in case I need to process sound (.dat) files, but normally avoid having it installed. often versions installation you hardware being any install if it in would "List" price for the first-install version is $249, though I doubt the discount chains are charging that much. I recently saw the SE update for $85. Next time I'm at Best Buy, I'll check on both versions. Well, it's no wonder that you're irritated with M$. That 95A version was a sizeable step back from the betas. I'd upgrade to '98SE if possible. I have had really much better results with /98 than with 95, even with OSR2. What's more, I'd avoid loading Netscape. I've found that when somebody with Netscape loaded on their portable drives up into my driveway, the systems in the house start to act squirrely. It not even necessary that the foreign notebook be attached to the net. Maybe Windows isn't for you. I use it because it's hard not to. I have half a dozen LINUX versions none of which has been left installed for more than a day or two, and they wouldn't meet my needs. Likewise, I've not gotten a comfortable feeling with SCO, UnixWare, etc. for the '386 and up types. > Wizard

What I was thinking of is a untoucheable and invisible OS and for managing data is data users created only. Applications and any little utils, drivers and hardware all are seen as "modules". Drivers and hardware go hand in hand and is therefore as hardware module set. For applications and small utils, they would be software modules. The user interface would be two sets of fancy "fuseboxes", each "fuse" is module for applications have very simple but understandable items like button that glows when on software startup, turn off certain features and/or disable that module by turning off the master button that is glowing to go out. To remove the application, a user would grab n' pull the certain application module out of it's socket (snick sound) and drop it in trash (noise trashcan makes when something thrown in) but the user-created data remains. Adding applications and any certain stuff software in nature come in form of a module(s) that you drag it from a install cdrom to the empty socket "application fusebox" with audiable click. Rearranging the startup enabled modules by physically rearrange the modules by their order. To launch applications, is by the run buttons, to end it, press it again it audibly starts, the button go dark with sound of running down. There should be two levels of user expertises: single mode or run multiple applications. If a application takes so long to run should show progress line extending, no numbers. Processing heavily, should show "hmmm". Same idea for hardware modules and "fusebox" with few features in each module for each hardware. Finally, to pull the hardware, user either pull the hardware itself and the modules simply diappears. Plug that hardware (it incidently has own drivers suite built in), module appears. USB's feature is very close to this mark but this is utterly spoiled by asking for a driver and still too complex and not in form of user interface I described. Note, the physical appearance should reflect what it should look like they have used everyday in their lives that make no mistaking what it is and use it. Not icons and text, each module has a name on it. Think of the myst and riven interfaces especially the buttons that lights and reconigizable info status. Snip! What I described would work with vast majority of users with flashing "12:00" vcrs even my mom would understand and use it in a flash. Apple's new stuff is not up to what I just described. I-opener concept is very close to that mark. M$ stuff is too complex and too confusingly, bad wordings and maze-like. Also, no menu! Basic functions that get used heavily comes in form of few buttons in a row. To use more complex features and to access features, use function commands via keyboard and a manual. People can learn by rote by using it again and again thereby the manual get used less and less with time. Too much time is wasted picking out menus with mouse. Should consider the mouse as minor part just for buttons, selecting lines or items, adjust something. Wizard

That would be a WONDERFUL idea ... an OS distributed on ROM. I trust you'll start on that immediately. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: &lt;jpero(a)cgocable.net&gt; To: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 3:43 AM Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' this this delete WHAT??

Well, the Minicomputer OS's were designed that no user could damage the system through the use of utilities and customer applications and such. The system wouldn't allow a user to accidentally delete a database, data file, command or anything else that they were dependent upon. They could enter data, generate reports, print programs, but not damage the apps (if written and installed correctly). Unix, VAX/VMS, RSTS/E, RSX/11M were examples of this -- but they're not always used as development platforms... sometimes they were application platforms. I haven't got a choice, nor do my coworkers at Lucent. Office97 is the default set of apps... even for programmers... for docs, spreadsheets, presentations... We use FrameMaker at times, but most people don't have licenses for that. I haven't got a choice, nor do my coworkers at Lucent. Office97 is the default set of apps... even for programmers... for docs, spreadsheets, presentations... We use FrameMaker at times, but most people don't have licenses for that. Microsoft has site licensed the Office suite for all of Lucent at a price... therefore we must run Windows 9x/NT/2000 (and the later isn't site licensed yet). We've got Sparcs and Linux boxes for project work and development and my web server and backup server are FreeBSD boxes with Samba and Apache -- but we've got everything dual booting to suport the 40mb attachments (this could be done better with a corporate supported web/ftp server with individual and departmental directories with an htpassword file controlling access and some cgi or something allowing the management types to upload and download these files in a controlled manner without the proliferation of exchange servers and overloading Unix mail servers with HUGE attachments and Word docs in mail clothing. Email should be short and in ASCII and readable with any type of terminal access and text to speech programs for the handicapped. Unfortunately, Microsoft can barely get large font support up in Windows... IBM did a lot with Screen Reader with Windows and OS/2... I haven't seen anything from Microsoft like that. Me too... this is from a FreeBSD box logged in from an OpenBSD throwaway Sparc ELC. Bill this ELC isn't diskless -- but will be a diskless Xterminal to the FreeBSD box when I get the blasted software configured right. -- bpechter(a)monmouth.com | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today? | Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? | BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?

Frankly, I haven't seen anyone running around in circles, except for one fellow who'd indulged in some illegal chemical abuse, on fire or not, nor have I seen anyone's head explode since the war. Perhaps a conclusion could be drawn about the lax attitude people have toward recreational use of chemicals . . . I recognize that a significant number of recreational substance abusers write code for a living. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Ford &lt;mikeford(a)socal.rr.com&gt; To: &lt;classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 12:35 PM Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond' wire it.