endure Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) An interesting assertion. What exactly did Microsoft build from the "ground up" 20 years ago? I'm genuinely interested in the answer. Question 1 > Answer > Windows Question 2 > Answer > Absolutely It is irrelevant that Microsoft may have "Copied" the idea for Windows from Apple... As Apple "Stole" the Idea for the Mac from Zerox! Excel is a copy (progression) of Lotus 123 which was a copy of VisiCalc... and all Browsers stem from NSCA Mosaic. That's progress! CS WRT question 1, Windows wasn't built from the ground up, it was (and in some ways still is) a shell for DOS which they bought the rights to, very smart marketing but very bad coding imho. Which Windows are you talking about? Windows 3 which was a DOS shell or NT which was built from the ground up as a 32 bit operating system project led by Dave Cutler ex-Digital who was one of the project leads on VMS? Edited July 10, 2009 by endure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endure Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 An interesting article by Dave Cutler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Imho Google did wrong when it decided to alter search results for money. Google does NOT alter search results for money. Ads are one thing, but the search results have nothing to do with any payments made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Imho Google did wrong when it decided to alter search results for money. Google does NOT alter search results for money. Ads are one thing, but the search results have nothing to do with any payments made. Yes. Trust is at the core of their business - this is their whole business model, and one of the reasons they have wiped out the competition. So it's unlikely that this will ever change. I guess a lot of people still don't get it so it bears repeating: If you are offline, it won't be a problem thanks to offline technologies. The main issue I see with Google Chrome OS is privacy. If Google servers host all my data then I want all that data to be encrypted with strong encryption and I want the key to reside with me only. If that were the case though then Google couldn't mine the data for keywords and present me ads in Gmail. So I don't know... businesses can surely not trust a third party with the security of their documents. No matter how insecure and sometimes plain dumb Windows is compared to a cloud OS solution, you are sill in control of your own data. This, as well as all other criticism that now emerges will have to wait until the OS is actually released though. Maybe they'll have a privacy solution, same way they have an offline solution. Too little is known right now to start attacking weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 An interesting article by Dave Cutler Yeah NT was a great, great OS. Then followed the slow deterioration into XP, and finally Vista. I remember working on Windows NT when it was still new, we did some cross platform software development. We worked on Mac OS 9 as the preferred machines - we were user interface guys, and Mac OS was so much better than Windows it wasn't even funny. But we also had two NT workstations. Our development environment was pretty unstable and if you made a mistake, you shot down the whole machine - got a "sad mac" and had to reboot, potentially losing some data. It was normal for Windows to crash during development too. Basically happened all the time. Then there was Windows NT. No matter how badly you programmed something, it would keep running. It would shut down the offending program, provide a debugger window, even, and keep on humming. The NT machines never died, no matter how hard we tried. It didn't rarely crash - it literally never crashed even once during the whole 6 month development period. Windows NT was clunky, and infinitely uglier than Mac OS. It was certainly much harder to get things done - the UI was in your way and so on. But because it never crashed, overall usability was on par of not better than Mac OS. The prettiest, and best thought out interface doesn't help if it's crashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 An interesting article by Dave Cutler Yeah NT was a great, great OS. Then followed the slow deterioration into XP, and finally Vista. I remember working on Windows NT when it was still new, we did some cross platform software development. We worked on Mac OS 9 as the preferred machines - we were user interface guys, and Mac OS was so much better than Windows it wasn't even funny. But we also had two NT workstations. Our development environment was pretty unstable and if you made a mistake, you shot down the whole machine - got a "sad mac" and had to reboot, potentially losing some data. It was normal for Windows to crash during development too. Basically happened all the time. Then there was Windows NT. No matter how badly you programmed something, it would keep running. It would shut down the offending program, provide a debugger window, even, and keep on humming. The NT machines never died, no matter how hard we tried. It didn't rarely crash - it literally never crashed even once during the whole 6 month development period. Windows NT was clunky, and infinitely uglier than Mac OS. It was certainly much harder to get things done - the UI was in your way and so on. But because it never crashed, overall usability was on par of not better than Mac OS. The prettiest, and best thought out interface doesn't help if it's crashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 An interesting article by Dave Cutler Yeah NT was a great, great OS. Then followed the slow deterioration into XP, and finally Vista. I remember working on Windows NT when it was still new, we did some cross platform software development. We worked on Mac OS 9 as the preferred machines - we were user interface guys, and Mac OS was so much better than Windows it wasn't even funny. But we also had two NT workstations. Our development environment was pretty unstable and if you made a mistake, you shot down the whole machine - got a "sad mac" and had to reboot, potentially losing some data. It was normal for Windows to crash during development too. Basically happened all the time. Then there was Windows NT. No matter how badly you programmed so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 [quote name='endure' date='2009-07-11 03:38:07' p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verydumbubba Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Nikster - say that again Bubba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Unlikely MS has so many agreements in place with manufacturers - dare say its literally impossible to beat them. Big fan of Vista and Windows7 seems even better. From presales of Windows7 - sounds like MS has found a winner again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I never had issues with Vista (after disabling those annoying confirmation dialogues), but 7 is definitely a better product that they probably should have waited to ship instead of Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKASA Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Yes The Edsel itself was a pretty darn good car, the biggest problem with Vista is its timing, its an Edsel. You can always fix problems but a reputation is forever. I also think MS did a lot of assuming with the public when releasing it. Win7 is an improvement thats still a little early if you look at how well XP still works for most people, but it will make it as the replace for XP. I held out with 98SE until 5/2005 I have run win7rc but I am just not in the market to replace any XP or the hardware that its on, its just not necessary for me. I said the same about vista when it came out, its just not necessary for me and waiting has paid off. I won't be using any form of online software or OS so I will also be waiting to see the Google desktop Linux. The netbooks are going to morf into nothing more then large cell phones for a smaller market. Laptops and desktops with an OS are here to stay. I would base nothing on presales data, we heard the same for Vista. Big ta do. Thats the marketing dept press releases. and MS taking points at work. "but it will make it as the replacement for XP." just in case anyone missed that I said that also. Thats just my HO, I could be wrong. A little Dennis Miller there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 If I am not mistaken this is one of the in the clouds, runs on google things. I live in Thailand, an OS that only works over a good internet connection is not only a dumb idea , its a stupid one. Plus why would I trust them with everything on my PC i.e. now on thier web site. Now if they are cutting cd's and have a real OS then lets see the iso and give it a spin like we would any Linux distro. OS's other then windows have been around but they don't ever have enough of those button thingees on them so most people fear using them. many fools will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Google is a publicly traded company, they need to regularly come up with new ideas and dreams to impress investing public. MS has locked new/replacement PC market, so google needs to find another area of growth. With this new OS they hope that netbooks will be the next big thing. Maybe, maybe not. They are not going to replace powerful desktops any time soon, however. There's also NO WAY google can provide working drivers for billions of PC out there if it hopes to penetrate that market (their distant dream if netbooks become successful). Their cloud thing is too early for the popular phsyche, I think. People are still conditioned to "my pc, my files" mindset, even they give out all their personal information, photos, and videos to social networking sites already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumonster Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I think the bigger picture is the ARM devices coming onto the market - the x86 boys are desperately trying to shave milliwatts off their processors and ARM chips are already there. combined with low power GPUs that can do 1080p playback and you can start having portable devices that will web browse , skype , email , VPN/VNC , word process , and database - but will weigh 1 kilo and last up to 24hours on a single charge. keeping data on remote severs is no big deal as you just encrypt it , bandwidth is the issue - but wifi , HSPA/LTS , 802.16e are providing that these OS's like googles and moblin and maemo are not for fullblown power setups , but highly portable devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verydumbubba Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I played with Redfly - love the concept - all we need is a larger screen. Bubba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now