Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Appeals Court Reverses MS Breakup

   (Jun 29, 2001 - 12:20 PM)

   Really, people.
   
   The issue of bundling software is a moot point at best. Although it seems like price undercutting, how else do operating systems really get better? One can only get so much stability and multitasking.
   
   (Before we get off on side tangents on how little MS products have of those things, keep in mind that it's RAM and trying to run too many programs that causes most of a computer's problems, NOT the operating system.)
   
   So. How, then, do companies like Microsoft make operating systems better? Hardware limitations don't make GUI upgrades feasible, especially if they have to cater to the lowest common consumer denominator. Frankly, I'm surprised they got alpha blending into Win2K, or scrolling menus into Win98. And yes, while those are just pieces of eye candy, there's not a whole lot more that operating systems can add--unless they turn to adding standalone programs and work on integrating them as part of the OS.
   
   So Microsoft integrated (and let's not bicker over the degree of integration, either, folks) IE into Win98. Netscape, obviously, wasn't very happy about that, but I think it was their mistake to spend money on lawyers with a dubious outcome at best while releasing crappy browsers. I've not heard of anyone in the web development field, really, who likes version 4.x. It only adds to my argument that v6 took so long to release, as well, and was still of substandard quality. (Standards support, anyone?) So while Microsoft did tie their browser, perhaps illegally, I don't think that their astounding growth of market share was due only to the fact that it came on the computer--but, rather, that they also made a superior product.
   
   Now, MS is getting flak over their inclusion of other technologies into WinXP. Smart Tags have a good place in Office XP as web integration, but putting them into IE6 was a faux pas that Microsoft will trip over should they force them in (last I heard, that won't be happening... yet.) But an MP3 encoder? That's pretty stupid. I can get free ones online legitimately, and that really makes arguments about stifling competition a waste of breath. It's enhancements like these that people pay for, ESPECIALLY the consumer. They don't care about reliability and stability over ease of use and features. Professionals are a different story, but it's not like those last simply disappear, either. They're just as important.
   
   Some cars "bundle" seat covers as standard options. Some phones "bundle" caller ID displays, when other manufacturers make them separately. This isn't illegal. Why, then, is the inclusion of software? In that second example, the consumer will buy a separate caller ID display if they want to keep their phone--as I will, if I want to, download and use Winamp instead of Windows Media Player.
   
   It's all about preference.

2. Comment - Appeals Court Reverses MS Breakup

   (Jun 29, 2001 - 12:20 PM)

   Really, people.
   
   The issue of bundling software is a moot point at best. Although it seems like price undercutting, how else do operating systems really get better? One can only get so much stability and multitasking.
   
   (Before we get off on side tangents on how little MS products have of those things, keep in mind that it's RAM and trying to run too many programs that causes most of a computer's problems, NOT the operating system.)
   
   So. How, then, do companies like Microsoft make operating systems better? Hardware limitations don't make GUI upgrades feasible, especially if they have to cater to the lowest common consumer denominator. Frankly, I'm surprised they got alpha blending into Win2K, or scrolling menus into Win98. And yes, while those are just pieces of eye candy, there's not a whole lot more that operating systems can add--unless they turn to adding standalone programs and work on integrating them as part of the OS.
   
   So Microsoft integrated (and let's not bicker over the degree of integration, either, folks) IE into Win98. Netscape, obviously, wasn't very happy about that, but I think it was their mistake to spend money on lawyers with a dubious outcome at best while releasing crappy browsers. I've not heard of anyone in the web development field, really, who likes version 4.x. It only adds to my argument that v6 took so long to release, as well, and was still of substandard quality. (Standards support, anyone?) So while Microsoft did tie their browser, perhaps illegally, I don't think that their astounding growth of market share was due only to the fact that it came on the computer--but, rather, that they also made a superior product.
   
   Now, MS is getting flak over their inclusion of other technologies into WinXP. Smart Tags have a good place in Office XP as web integration, but putting them into IE6 was a faux pas that Microsoft will trip over should they force them in (last I heard, that won't be happening... yet.) But an MP3 encoder? That's pretty stupid. I can get free ones online legitimately, and that really makes arguments about stifling competition a waste of breath. It's enhancements like these that people pay for, ESPECIALLY the consumer. They don't care about reliability and stability over ease of use and features. Professionals are a different story, but it's not like those last simply disappear, either. They're just as important.
   
   Some cars "bundle" seat covers as standard options. Some phones "bundle" caller ID displays, when other manufacturers make them separately. This isn't illegal. Why, then, is the inclusion of software? In that second example, the consumer will buy a separate caller ID display if they want to keep their phone--as I will, if I want to, download and use Winamp instead of Windows Media Player.
   
   It's all about preference.

3. Comment - More on Windows Activation

   (Jun 5, 2001 - 6:14 PM)

   1. Word was doing GUI before WordPerfect. Ever since Word for Windows came out, WordPerfect has been playing catch-up.
   
   I *so* beg to differ. It has only been in the last few years that WP has fallen behind--compare WP 7 or 8 and Word 97 / 2000. Office XP and WP 2002 show that MS has retaken the lead, though. But back to two years past ... Microsoft, who touted their "compatibility" and "web features," was obviously nowhere close to Corel when it came to those specific areas. But even though they're now at 90% market share, the 10% that are left are a niche that will likely remain. Corel is like Apple in that respect; they command a small, albeit devoted, bundle of users that aren't likely to change.
   
   As for specific evidence on the functionality of WP 8 vs. Word 97/2000, I'll be only too willing to e-mail anyone interested a copy of a feature-by-feature comparison. The only thing worth mentioning is Reveal Codes; Word just recently introduced a comparable feature in XP. It allows you to look at all the formatting tags behind your document, so you can *see* why your tables are screwed up. Advanced formatting freaks like me couldn't live without the thing.
   
   2. But such tools do not offer near the functionality of their Windows counterparts.
   
   Ah, yes. jr, you speak the truth here. The GIMP cannot compare, palette for toolbar, with any professional imaging tool. CorelDRAW, JASC Paint Shop Pro, and Adobe Photoshop all put that miserable program to shame. The options are so limited, the interface so clunky, that it's nearly impossible to produce anything. I've tried three different versions, one fairly recently, and I'm still convinced that even though I might prefer PSP to Photoshop, I'd use Photoshop over the GIMP hands down. There's just no contest.
   
   Re: Aitvo.
   
   Why not use the real thing? Common sense says that having a separate process intercept and redirect API calls will create a lag between the user's click and the computer's processing of the actual task, no matter how small. It's still a delay.
   
   As for your claim of 10K apps, I'll wait to see M$ deliver Office for Linux. WordPerfect owns the most share of the remaining 10% (I won't bother with StarOffice or any of the others), but how many of the hundred are left? And of those, how many are on windows? It makes no sense for a user to migrate to another OS if he will not be more productive--and how can that happen if the tools don't exist?
   
   VMware is the same story. I'd rather run the original OS than an emulator, no matter how stable it is. The originals just work better. Nesticle is/was a great NES emulator, but you didn't have the instant compatibility with ROMs that an actual console had. Not to mention all the associated bugs: bugs that simply didn't exist on firmware.
   
   I, too, run Windows 2000, and one day I happened to count my processes. I was up to about sixty-three, of which fifteen or so were background services and, obviously, explorer. The rest were applications or windows of those. And what had I noticed? Absolutely nothing. 512 MB RAM helps with that, obviously, but Linux can't proclaim that it is the ONLY operating system with multitasking.
   
   While your Iomega Clik drive story is nice, too, I'll refrain from asking you directly and just wonder aloud how long it took you to set up your system, initially. From first insert of my Win2K cd to the last ejection of driver CDs, my install is about 65 minutes, of which forty is formatting.
   
   It approaches impossibility to have that happen for Linux of any flavor on a broad spectrum of systems.
   
   As for product activation (ah, how we love to get off topic here!) I'll just say that while I wish MS would allow home users up to five installations per copy, which is totally reasonable and takes care of the majority of users, I will still use XP when the Professional version is released. (None of that pukey Personal stuff for me.. I want power, not GUI. If I wanted GUI, i'd be running winME.) I will call up their activations office and get the key as many times as I need to, and I'll sue their behinds should they refuse. I bought the right to use their software, and I'll format my disk as many times as I feel like it.

4. Comment - Linux Beats XP to the Itanium

   (May 31, 2001 - 4:10 PM)

   OK. Let's compare Linux and Windows, shall we?
   
   I've used (or shall we say, tried) four different versions of linux on my system. There've been no changes in the original configuration between each reinstall. I'm using an AMD Athlon 700 with 512 MB of PC133 SDRAM, an Elsa GeForce 256, SoundBlaster Live!, Motorola sm56 modem, and an old RealTek NIC. Mouse is a microsoft USB optical, keyboard is standard 101-key.
   
   -Windows 98 detects nothing, though I can at least start the OS, load the drivers, and get everything to work.
   -Windows ME detects the sound card, but nothing else. Same story as win98, basically.
   -Windows 2000 detects everything but the modem and video card, but it boots and I can load those drivers.
   
   -RedHat 6.1 detects zip. Can't even boot.
   -Corel Linux R1 detects the sound card, but that doesn't help when it won't let me, the administrator, load video or networking drivers. I got it to boot once, but only in a 4-bit color mode.
   -SuSE detects my video card. Boots fine, but I can't load sound drivers or use networking at all.
   -RedHat 7 detects my video card and my sound card, but again refuses to load drivers for either my modem or NIC. Noted that it does see the NIC, and recognizes it, but does not load drivers.
   
   So. Which will I go with? Operating systems that don't detect my hardware and REFUSE to let me install, or those that detect AND install most of my hardware, plus allow those third-party drivers?
   
   Don't even get me started on application compatibility. I work as a graphic designer, and the GIMP sucks, quite simply. I'd not touch the thing with a ten-foot pole. Give me Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, and I'll give you a website. But Linux doesn't run those, so it makes no sense for me to use it. (And no, I don't want to emulate another OS while running linux with VMware. It makes no sense to have two OS's running when one does just fine.)
   
   As for stability, I'm all too aware of explorer crashes. I tweak win2k outrageously, though, so it's partially my fault. But, crashing one instance of explorer (a folder window, for instance) does not kill my desktop, IE, or any other windows I have open. I'll take that as a lovely example of multitasking.
   
   Rebooting is something I do fairly often (and you would too, opening images that use 100+ MB in RAM), but people need to understand that it's not the OS's fault there. Most of the time, it's lazy programmers at the application companies, who allocate RAM and then don't bother to free it up when closing a file or program.
   
   Security. Out of the box, Win2k is far more secure than Win98. You're not allowed to hit Cancel on the login box, obviously, and add that most ports are automatically hidden and you're doing rather well. But Linux is just as hackable, as seen by the new worm flavors now being written. There's no clear advantage here.
   
   Overall, I'll take an OS that allows me to get to work faster and more efficiently. Installation is quick on Linux, true, but Win2k was faster, simply because I didn't have to spend a great deal of time trying to make the dang thing work. I can run all the programs I need or want, (gotta love compatibility mode!) and rebooting and security just don't affect things.
   
   I guess I'll keep on with Bill for the time being. :)