IBM closes the book on OS/2
Friday, July 1, 2005 by Draginol | Discussion: OS Wars
I used to be an OS/2 zealot. You hear about Mac bigots and Linuz zealots, well, let me tell you just how bad of an OS/2 zealot I used to be -- I can recount various key moments in my younger life based on their proximity to the release of IBM's OS/2 2.0 (March 31, 1992).
"When did you and your wife meet?" is a common question. My brain pages through the records and goes "Ah, it was just after the release of OS/2 and therefore it must have been in Spring of 1992."
Birthdays, anniversaries, whatever, I have trouble remembering. But OS/2 2.0's release date is burned into my mind. And for the subsequent 6 years, I devoted nearly every waking hour to making OS/2 succeed. It wasn't about money. It wasn't about business. It was a cause. OS/2 was my cause. It was a better way of doing things. Some people get wrapped up in ideologies. Other people go on religious crusades. I was on an OS crusade.
And we lost. Badly.
Another date I remember well was Fall of 1996. That was when Microsoft release Windows NT 4.0. And within a year, the OS/2 market died. Microsoft's effective FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) combined with IBM's unwillingness to strongly back OS/2 made it ripe to be toppled over by Windows NT 4.0 which, while not as good as OS/2 Warp 4, was "good enough" and had good industry support.
By 1998, our once thriving company was laying people off and struggling to survive. And I wasn't a 20 year old college student anymore. I was 26, married, with a young son. I had responsibilities to my family and my employees. We limped our way into the Windows market, tail between our legs. Nowadays, we're a pure Microsoft shop. .NET solutions across the board. Microsoft SQL. Microsoft Office. Our company makes a great demonstration of Microsoft solutions now. Which is pretty ironic since we were once OS/2 zealots. I'm not a Windows zealot today. I'm not even a Windows advocate really. It's just business.
The romanticism of OS technology has warn off and there's nothing as relatively cutting edge as OS/2 was back then. So now I don't really think of the OS choice much beyond market share and what makes good business sense. Now it's about the software WE make. I am still dedicated to a cause -- making stuff that enables people to use their computers however they want. And I want to make software that is cool and useful. That's where software like Object Desktop and now ThinkDesk comes in.
So today IBM and Microsoft announced that they're closing the books on that uglyness that was OS/2. Almost 10 years after Windows 95 was released, Microsoft is paying IBM off to not sue them over all the "unpleasantness" that Microsoft was involved in to ensure that 95%+ of you are using Microsoft Windows instead of IBM OS/2. We'll never know if we would have been better off if OS/2 had won out instead of Windows. But at least IBM got to recoup some of their costs for trying.
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Leauki
Reply #22 Sunday, July 3, 2005 5:17 PM
Reply #22 Sunday, July 3, 2005 5:17 PM
" If there not a monopoly how is it that they are being forced to alter thier Windows XP versions in Europe and that 90% of prebuilt computers come with XP?"
Because government action is not a function of the mathematical realities of the market?
"If they not a monopoly than how come Linux hasn't become mainstream or Apple for that matter?"
That's a silly question. You assume that product X would be mainstream if product Y was not a monopoly. The assumption is not true.
"Why is it MS spreads FUD about other OS systems?"
Because other OS systems exist. If they did not exist, Microsoft would not spread FUD. FUD is a defence against competition, not a symptom of a monopoly. I would be worried if Microsoft felt that they did not have to spread FUD.
"Some people need to open up there eyes..."
So go ahead.
"Microsoft may not be the AT&T of old but they are some sort of monopoly."
So Microsoft are a lesser monopoly than AT&T?
What's a lesser monopoly?
Because government action is not a function of the mathematical realities of the market?
"If they not a monopoly than how come Linux hasn't become mainstream or Apple for that matter?"
That's a silly question. You assume that product X would be mainstream if product Y was not a monopoly. The assumption is not true.
"Why is it MS spreads FUD about other OS systems?"
Because other OS systems exist. If they did not exist, Microsoft would not spread FUD. FUD is a defence against competition, not a symptom of a monopoly. I would be worried if Microsoft felt that they did not have to spread FUD.
"Some people need to open up there eyes..."
So go ahead.
"Microsoft may not be the AT&T of old but they are some sort of monopoly."
So Microsoft are a lesser monopoly than AT&T?
What's a lesser monopoly?
Jafo
Reply #23 Sunday, July 3, 2005 7:24 PM
Reply #23 Sunday, July 3, 2005 7:24 PM
OK...let's get beyond semantics. 'Monopoly' means 'one', and is therefore an absolute.
You cannot be 'less' of a monopoly, just as you cannot be 'more' pregnant, also an absolute....or 'more' empty, etc.
What Microsoft is is an 'effective' monopoly....in other words its opposition/competition may as well NOT exist as their market share/impact/influence is as good as dead in the water.
Now, when you have market dominance you can make of that market what you will. No- 'viable' competition is there to 'keep the bastards honest', or in this case have sufficient influence to alter public opinion that just maybe things are being handled or dealt to them unfairly.
Example.
By the time MS has this 'effective' monopoly it alone determines product pricing because the 'potential alternatives' are almost too insignificant to be seen as options.....particularly if you can somehow make your product appear 'indispensible' through the peer-pressure of business conformity of standards, etc. [If Photoshop is the graphics industry standard then any/all OS alternatives that do not support it [well] will fail within that industry].
So...
'sort of monopoly' is a valid permutation...
Boss019
Reply #24 Sunday, July 3, 2005 8:00 PM
Reply #24 Sunday, July 3, 2005 8:00 PM
Any good business would love to be in Microsoft's position. They got to the top, they don't have to help the competition, and the competition will fail unless they can convince more than a few loyalists that their product is better. That is it. Bottom line. Nobody said business has to be fair.
starkers
Reply #25 Sunday, July 3, 2005 11:34 PM
Reply #25 Sunday, July 3, 2005 11:34 PM
Andrew: My purchase of XP was not so much a matter of personal choice, but more one of having to use the only viable option available. As most other software developers create specifically for Windows, AppleMac and others could not provide that viability. In other words, the market is saturated with MS and compatible products, leaving very little or no room for alternatives. Besides, here in OZ, the mainstream is Windows or Mac....Linux if you want to download it, but its simply not a viable alternative to Windows without market support.
My complaint is not that MS is successful, but that it has effectively closed the door on other developers with its "all's fair in love, war and business" strategies. I mean, if we all adopted that ideology, we'd all be stealing nanna's purse and selling it back to her after removing the cash.
A similar argument was raised by US car manufacturers when Japan flooded theirs and overseas markets with cheap imports, thus reducing sales and forcing domestic prices above the average consumer's ability to pay. Once established, the Japanese manufacturers were able to set prices and market trends....and I recall many cries for government intervention then, so what's the difference here? No, not all is fair in love, war and business, is it?
Then there was Hitler's quest for world domination and the Tuetonic way for all....different methods but equally as immoral. The record speaks for itself...if it couldn't be bought or manipuated to conform to one ideal, it was eliminated through market domination.
As for my developing my own interface, etc...I neither have the expertise or funds (due to chronic illness) to embark on such a venture. Oh how I wish, but sadly, that's well beyond my means.
Oh well, we may not all agree, but it's good to view other's opinions and enjoy the debate....have a great day all.
My complaint is not that MS is successful, but that it has effectively closed the door on other developers with its "all's fair in love, war and business" strategies. I mean, if we all adopted that ideology, we'd all be stealing nanna's purse and selling it back to her after removing the cash.
A similar argument was raised by US car manufacturers when Japan flooded theirs and overseas markets with cheap imports, thus reducing sales and forcing domestic prices above the average consumer's ability to pay. Once established, the Japanese manufacturers were able to set prices and market trends....and I recall many cries for government intervention then, so what's the difference here? No, not all is fair in love, war and business, is it?
Then there was Hitler's quest for world domination and the Tuetonic way for all....different methods but equally as immoral. The record speaks for itself...if it couldn't be bought or manipuated to conform to one ideal, it was eliminated through market domination.
As for my developing my own interface, etc...I neither have the expertise or funds (due to chronic illness) to embark on such a venture. Oh how I wish, but sadly, that's well beyond my means.
Oh well, we may not all agree, but it's good to view other's opinions and enjoy the debate....have a great day all.
Dr Guy
Reply #26 Monday, July 4, 2005 3:45 PM
Reply #26 Monday, July 4, 2005 3:45 PM
Twas beauty that killed the beast. Microsoft out marketing IBM. Microsoft did it before, and they did it since.
A shame. From the limited exposure I had with OS/2, it skunked NT. Guess that is why Microsoft abandoned that moniker when they released 2k. (altho it is still in the code)
JazzyHue
Reply #27 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:08 AM
Reply #27 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:08 AM
I thought this story was about OS2 - not an attack on Microsft. But since so many people has brought it up let me say that everything I buy now has double or trippled in price since 1995 - ten yours ago, but my windows XP cost less than my windows 95. If Microsoft is price gauging I can't see it. Go figure.
Jafo
Reply #28 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:25 AM
Reply #28 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:25 AM
| my windows XP cost less than my windows 95. If Microsoft is price gauging I can't see it. Go figure. |
Yes, I bought the Win98 [not SE] as OEM for AUS 180 .... and years later got XP Pro as OEM for 200 ..... considering its superiority, and taking into account inflation, XP Pro was/is a [relative] bargain....
Abanamore
Reply #29 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:03 AM
Reply #29 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:03 AM
I used to love and use OS/2 but realities kicked in ( I liked to play games too...) and at some point when I had to upgrade my computer I decided not to make it dual boot - there just wasn't that much use for it anymore. Windows had better hardware support and some programs I really liked so it was time for OS/2 to go.
And WPS. There wasn't _that_ many real wps programs but the concept of object oriented desktop was/is really cool. Hey Brad, what about making a replica of it for Windows...
I don't find DesktopX or other current programs worthwhile to use, I use my desktop as a program launcher, not as a "desktop" in WPS sense. Oh shit, I feel so nostalgic, damn you Brad
And WPS. There wasn't _that_ many real wps programs but the concept of object oriented desktop was/is really cool. Hey Brad, what about making a replica of it for Windows...
I don't find DesktopX or other current programs worthwhile to use, I use my desktop as a program launcher, not as a "desktop" in WPS sense. Oh shit, I feel so nostalgic, damn you Brad
Zoomba
Reply #30 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:40 AM
Reply #30 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:40 AM
kona... you're talking out the wrong end again here....
1. The EU forcing MS to split out parts of the OS from XP and provide a more "competition-friendly" product does not prove that there is a monopoly. Monopoly means that a single company controls the market absolutely and there are no viable alternatives. You can buy OS X, you can buy distributions of Linux... hell you can buy BeOS again. The EU has always had far more broad definitions of monopoly and monopolistic behaviors than the US. Of course, with the XPn thing you're talking about, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that consumers don't want the "better" version. It's been a flop in the market. Is it really a monopoly when consumers simply don't WANT alternatives?
2. Apple & Linux not mainstream because of Microsoft. I'm sorry, but what the heck are you smoking?! Apple used to be mainstream... Apple used to have the home computer MONOPOLY. Yes, that's right... there was a time where you either bought a Mac, or you puttered along on some ancient text-based machine. If the average mom and pop user wanted a machine, they had to buy a Mac, that's all there was to it. Apple lost control of the market through a combination of bad business decisions and an inability to properly market their product. Microsoft stepped in with a better overall business model (build the OS, let others futz with the hardware) and took over.
Linux isn't anywhere near mainstream because for the desktop user, it's a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Linux flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to work in Linux on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OfficeXP. Evolution is nice but it's not as professional looking as Outlook. Linux is proof that technical superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the marketplace. Linux has failed on the desktop through its own shortcomings, not because of MS FUD.
--------------
Microsoft is an effective monopoly as Jafo said. It's not a true monopoly since there are alternatives, but through a combination of smart business dealings and shady slaps at the competition, MS is the dominant company in the market. In the beginning you had Windows and the Mac System Software (not named MacOS yet) for Operating Systems. Mac was there first, Mac was admittedly the better product. What happened was that eventually the consumer made the choice to what they wanted (a decision influenced by price and available products). The customer made Microsoft the market dominator willingly. Yes, MS later used this power to squash competition (Netscape being a prime example), and for that they got a good slap... and you'll notice that they've played nice for the most part since.
AT&T was a real monopoly because NO choice existed. Alternatives to Windows exist. You can buy a Mac, or a Linux distro. The choice is still left to you. Hardware and software support is another issue, and you can't blame other companies for not supporting platforms that don't have enough users to make the development effort worth it.
1. The EU forcing MS to split out parts of the OS from XP and provide a more "competition-friendly" product does not prove that there is a monopoly. Monopoly means that a single company controls the market absolutely and there are no viable alternatives. You can buy OS X, you can buy distributions of Linux... hell you can buy BeOS again. The EU has always had far more broad definitions of monopoly and monopolistic behaviors than the US. Of course, with the XPn thing you're talking about, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that consumers don't want the "better" version. It's been a flop in the market. Is it really a monopoly when consumers simply don't WANT alternatives?
2. Apple & Linux not mainstream because of Microsoft. I'm sorry, but what the heck are you smoking?! Apple used to be mainstream... Apple used to have the home computer MONOPOLY. Yes, that's right... there was a time where you either bought a Mac, or you puttered along on some ancient text-based machine. If the average mom and pop user wanted a machine, they had to buy a Mac, that's all there was to it. Apple lost control of the market through a combination of bad business decisions and an inability to properly market their product. Microsoft stepped in with a better overall business model (build the OS, let others futz with the hardware) and took over.
Linux isn't anywhere near mainstream because for the desktop user, it's a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Linux flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to work in Linux on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OfficeXP. Evolution is nice but it's not as professional looking as Outlook. Linux is proof that technical superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the marketplace. Linux has failed on the desktop through its own shortcomings, not because of MS FUD.
--------------
Microsoft is an effective monopoly as Jafo said. It's not a true monopoly since there are alternatives, but through a combination of smart business dealings and shady slaps at the competition, MS is the dominant company in the market. In the beginning you had Windows and the Mac System Software (not named MacOS yet) for Operating Systems. Mac was there first, Mac was admittedly the better product. What happened was that eventually the consumer made the choice to what they wanted (a decision influenced by price and available products). The customer made Microsoft the market dominator willingly. Yes, MS later used this power to squash competition (Netscape being a prime example), and for that they got a good slap... and you'll notice that they've played nice for the most part since.
AT&T was a real monopoly because NO choice existed. Alternatives to Windows exist. You can buy a Mac, or a Linux distro. The choice is still left to you. Hardware and software support is another issue, and you can't blame other companies for not supporting platforms that don't have enough users to make the development effort worth it.
Koasati
Reply #31 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:47 AM
Reply #31 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:47 AM
| Then there was Hitler's quest for world domination and the Tuetonic way for all... |
..... just when I was about to get bored with this thread, you compare MS to Hitler .........
Now that's comedy!
Dr Guy
Reply #32 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:57 AM
Reply #32 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:57 AM
| Linux isn't anywhere near mainstream because for the desktop user, it's a piece of garbage. |
You are going to get it now! I am Glad I am not Zoomba! 
Zoomba
Reply #33 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 10:06 AM
Hey! You don't get to pick and choose when you're Zoomba! Being Zoomba is a package deal, you take the good with the bad... We don't accept fair-weather Zoombas here at ZoombaCorp
Reply #33 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 10:06 AM
| You are going to get it now! I am Glad I am not Zoomba! |
Hey! You don't get to pick and choose when you're Zoomba! Being Zoomba is a package deal, you take the good with the bad... We don't accept fair-weather Zoombas here at ZoombaCorp
Ka806
Reply #34 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:37 AM
Reply #34 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:37 AM
Yeah people will get it and i will bring it.
1. YES MS IS A MONOPOLY AND THEY DO PERFORM MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES. To think otherwise is just plain blindness. When a company goes to individual hardware suppliers and forces them to bundle windows with that hardware, knowing full well that the OS is totally complementing the computer hardware, you are practicing anti-competetive tactics. When you release software that forcibly disallow incompatability with other OS, then yes you are practicing anti-competative tactics. When a company uses its stranglehold on the OS market to bundle in applications, knowing full well that users wont try out alternatives, then thats anti-competative tactics.When you disregard current computing standards, and create your own just for the sake that knowone else can use then (case in point the current XML situation).....YES THOSE ARE ANTI-COMPETATIVE TACTICS.
I really dont want people coming up with pure rubbish, and not actually looking into why people are making claims of MS being monopolistic. In economy classes, when asked to name a monopoly, MS is the first thing that comes to mind. In fact I remember a professor asking explicitly to name a monopoly in the US that is not MS. Its a plain fact and dont try to discredit it.
Linux and all of the other OSes are not mainstream BECAUSE MS IS BEING ANTICOMPETATIVE. You know it, I know it, IBM knows it, the US court knows it, heck the European courts know it. They did stuff that is not fair, and that the end of that subject.
In most cases, yes it does have to come with it. Because MS makes contracts with most PC providers. Your just telling me that you dont get it. This isn't smart business......ITS ANTI-COMPETETIVE
THE EU SAID IT WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES. Thats why MS was forced to pay a large fine, thats why it was forced to release a windows lite version. In most cases if you buy a pc from a hardware vendor, you HAVE to get windows. No if ands or buts about it.
You are the one who is obviously smoking if you fail to accept that Microsoft windows is being forced on the average consumer.
I think a lot of you people are just really confused because you dont have a concept of a monopoly that is created by the people and not the government.
Ummm yeah You can spread bullshit all you want, but please dont spread it as fact. Use mandy or something or shut up. how about I give you something from my perspective.
Windows is a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Windows flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to keep Windows secure and stable on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice (HECK IT DONT EVEN SUPPORT XML). Outlook is nice but it's not as professional looking as Evolution. Windows is proof that market superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the better Windows has succeeded on desktop through its own shortcomings, and of course MS FUD.
Wait a sec. Why did my statement make as much sense as your? Oh wait yeah I know, cause we were both spewing damn opinions. I dont want to get into OS wars. But If you want to so be it, chances are I will take you six ways to sunday though.
1. YES MS IS A MONOPOLY AND THEY DO PERFORM MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES. To think otherwise is just plain blindness. When a company goes to individual hardware suppliers and forces them to bundle windows with that hardware, knowing full well that the OS is totally complementing the computer hardware, you are practicing anti-competetive tactics. When you release software that forcibly disallow incompatability with other OS, then yes you are practicing anti-competative tactics. When a company uses its stranglehold on the OS market to bundle in applications, knowing full well that users wont try out alternatives, then thats anti-competative tactics.When you disregard current computing standards, and create your own just for the sake that knowone else can use then (case in point the current XML situation).....YES THOSE ARE ANTI-COMPETATIVE TACTICS.
I really dont want people coming up with pure rubbish, and not actually looking into why people are making claims of MS being monopolistic. In economy classes, when asked to name a monopoly, MS is the first thing that comes to mind. In fact I remember a professor asking explicitly to name a monopoly in the US that is not MS. Its a plain fact and dont try to discredit it.
Linux and all of the other OSes are not mainstream BECAUSE MS IS BEING ANTICOMPETATIVE. You know it, I know it, IBM knows it, the US court knows it, heck the European courts know it. They did stuff that is not fair, and that the end of that subject.
| Your PC does not have to come with Windows. If it does come with it, it is because Microsoft made a contract deal with a PC provider. |
In most cases, yes it does have to come with it. Because MS makes contracts with most PC providers. Your just telling me that you dont get it. This isn't smart business......ITS ANTI-COMPETETIVE
| 1. The EU forcing MS to split out parts of the OS from XP and provide a more "competition-friendly" product does not prove that there is a monopoly. Monopoly means that a single company controls the market absolutely and there are no viable alternatives. You can buy OS X, you can buy distributions of Linux... hell you can buy BeOS again. The EU has always had far more broad definitions of monopoly and monopolistic behaviors than the US. Of course, with the XPn thing you're talking about, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that consumers don't want the "better" version. It's been a flop in the market. Is it really a monopoly when consumers simply don't WANT alternatives? |
THE EU SAID IT WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES. Thats why MS was forced to pay a large fine, thats why it was forced to release a windows lite version. In most cases if you buy a pc from a hardware vendor, you HAVE to get windows. No if ands or buts about it.
You are the one who is obviously smoking if you fail to accept that Microsoft windows is being forced on the average consumer.
I think a lot of you people are just really confused because you dont have a concept of a monopoly that is created by the people and not the government.
| Linux isn't anywhere near mainstream because for the desktop user, it's a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Linux flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to work in Linux on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OfficeXP. Evolution is nice but it's not as professional looking as Outlook. Linux is proof that technical superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the marketplace. Linux has failed on the desktop through its own shortcomings, not because of MS FUD. |
Ummm yeah You can spread bullshit all you want, but please dont spread it as fact. Use mandy or something or shut up. how about I give you something from my perspective.
Windows is a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Windows flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to keep Windows secure and stable on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice (HECK IT DONT EVEN SUPPORT XML). Outlook is nice but it's not as professional looking as Evolution. Windows is proof that market superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the better Windows has succeeded on desktop through its own shortcomings, and of course MS FUD.
Wait a sec. Why did my statement make as much sense as your? Oh wait yeah I know, cause we were both spewing damn opinions. I dont want to get into OS wars. But If you want to so be it, chances are I will take you six ways to sunday though.
Jafo
Reply #35 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:09 AM
Reply #35 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:09 AM
| chances are I will take you six ways to sunday though. |
Dream on ....
kona0197
Reply #36 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:54 PM
WHATEVER....
Obviously you have never tried a good distro. In Ubuntu things are easy to configure and even a noobie can handle the GUI. You don't have to know what your doing to work with Linux.
Reply #36 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:54 PM
| Linux isn't anywhere near mainstream because for the desktop user, it's a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Linux flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to work in Linux on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OfficeXP. Evolution is nice but it's not as professional looking as Outlook. Linux is proof that technical superiority doesn't mean anything when it comes to being successful in the marketplace. Linux has failed on the desktop through its own shortcomings, not because of MS FUD. |
WHATEVER....
Obviously you have never tried a good distro. In Ubuntu things are easy to configure and even a noobie can handle the GUI. You don't have to know what your doing to work with Linux.
Boss019
Reply #37 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:55 PM
That may be all well and true. I've never used it. But until it makes it onto the mainstream computer manufacturer's computers, who will ever know? And to do that, they're going to have to beat Microsoft at it's own game. Highly unlikely, but there's not much in the way of options.
And I tend to think your perception of a newbie overestimates the reality. There are a lot more people out there than you realize that can hardly install a program if the cd doesn't auto-start and run the install. And download something from the internet and find a zip file? Or heaven forbid, a .rar? They might as well be trying to fly an airplane. Something like Linux just isn't going to go anywhere but where it is now...on the desks of computer literate Microsoft haters and computer users that just like to try out alternative OS's and programs.
Reply #37 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:55 PM
| In Ubuntu things are easy to configure and even a noobie can handle the GUI. You don't have to know what your doing to work with Linux. |
That may be all well and true. I've never used it. But until it makes it onto the mainstream computer manufacturer's computers, who will ever know? And to do that, they're going to have to beat Microsoft at it's own game. Highly unlikely, but there's not much in the way of options.
And I tend to think your perception of a newbie overestimates the reality. There are a lot more people out there than you realize that can hardly install a program if the cd doesn't auto-start and run the install. And download something from the internet and find a zip file? Or heaven forbid, a .rar? They might as well be trying to fly an airplane. Something like Linux just isn't going to go anywhere but where it is now...on the desks of computer literate Microsoft haters and computer users that just like to try out alternative OS's and programs.
essjae
Reply #38 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:00 PM
Thanks for your opinion. The only OS that has a fairly consistent GUI is OS X, don't even try to say any distro of Linux does. Installing software isn't easy? Double-click an icon, wow, thats hard!
What do you suggest, in your infinite wisdom, for a home user? Something that you can do home user things on like play games, buy a peripheral and have the necessary drivers for it to work with your OS?
Oh, and the choice of Windows applications is small? Compared to what?
And OpenOffice doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice, huh?
A monopoly is something or someone that has EXCLUSIVE control over something. If MS was a monopoly, there would be no Linux, no Apple, etc.
Its still not as simple to install as Windows, and the first time I installed, I never even got an option to install a GUI.
I bought OS/2 2.something and it was pretty cool. But on my top-of-the-line PC (at the time) it took 3-4x as long to load and it was a lot more difficult to work with. Booting to DOS and lauching Win3.11 was way faster and Office installed and worked. One guy I worked with was an OS/2 zealot, but I never saw it having greater benefits for what I needed, so I gave up. I also remember the Warp Tour with version 4, but IBM didn't have the niche to be the only OEM to sell OS/2 configured PC's like Apple did with OS9.
Linux has come a long long way and its almost as easy to use as Windows, but there's still a lot of disparity with apps and installer, rpms, debs, etc, etc. And you do still need to mess with the command line, kernel recompiles, etc. Unfortunately, I think OS X on Intel will do more damage to Linux than MS has/can. OS X will provide a nice no hassle BSD based environment with a consistent GUI.
BTW, I run Windows, OS X, and Linux boxes, but like many others that have posted here, Windows suits my needs best for 90% of my daily activities.
Reply #38 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:00 PM
| Windows is a piece of garbage. Yes, I said it. For the home user, Windows flat-out sucks. The GUI is inconsistent, muddled, confusing and jammed full of crap. You really have to know what you're doing to keep Windows secure and stable on a daily basis. Installing software isn't nearly as easy as it should be, and the quality of desktop apps, as well as the range of choices is pretty damn small. OpenOffice is a nice first attempt, but it doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice (HECK IT DONT EVEN SUPPORT XML). |
Thanks for your opinion. The only OS that has a fairly consistent GUI is OS X, don't even try to say any distro of Linux does. Installing software isn't easy? Double-click an icon, wow, thats hard!
What do you suggest, in your infinite wisdom, for a home user? Something that you can do home user things on like play games, buy a peripheral and have the necessary drivers for it to work with your OS?
Oh, and the choice of Windows applications is small? Compared to what?
And OpenOffice doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice, huh?
A monopoly is something or someone that has EXCLUSIVE control over something. If MS was a monopoly, there would be no Linux, no Apple, etc.
| In Ubuntu things are easy to configure and even a noobie can handle the GUI. You don't have to know what your doing to work with Linux. |
Its still not as simple to install as Windows, and the first time I installed, I never even got an option to install a GUI.
I bought OS/2 2.something and it was pretty cool. But on my top-of-the-line PC (at the time) it took 3-4x as long to load and it was a lot more difficult to work with. Booting to DOS and lauching Win3.11 was way faster and Office installed and worked. One guy I worked with was an OS/2 zealot, but I never saw it having greater benefits for what I needed, so I gave up. I also remember the Warp Tour with version 4, but IBM didn't have the niche to be the only OEM to sell OS/2 configured PC's like Apple did with OS9.
| But until it makes it onto the mainstream computer manufacturer's computers, who will ever know? And to do that, they're going to have to beat Microsoft at it's own game. |
Linux has come a long long way and its almost as easy to use as Windows, but there's still a lot of disparity with apps and installer, rpms, debs, etc, etc. And you do still need to mess with the command line, kernel recompiles, etc. Unfortunately, I think OS X on Intel will do more damage to Linux than MS has/can. OS X will provide a nice no hassle BSD based environment with a consistent GUI.
BTW, I run Windows, OS X, and Linux boxes, but like many others that have posted here, Windows suits my needs best for 90% of my daily activities.
Ka806
Reply #39 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:17 PM
hehe Its easy to prove linux is a usable as windows. Just as easy as it is to prove that windows as usable as linux
Reply #39 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:17 PM
| Dream on .... |
hehe Its easy to prove linux is a usable as windows. Just as easy as it is to prove that windows as usable as linux
Ka806
Reply #40 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:36 PM
Ummm that was a post in response to Koombas words to prove that he was just spouting opinions. And one of these days, You SHOULD compare the windows choice of applications to the Linux choice of application....cause the reality is.....Linux severely blows windows away. In fact one of the main themes of Linux is choice. Compare the DEs of linuc and windows.....In windows you have explorer DE....In Linux you have kde,gnome,xfve, and WMS including Blackbox, fluxbox,Enlightenment,fvwm2, and about 20+ others.
And also OSX has the LEAST consistent of all the UI. It has no damn Start bar for crying out load. The file structure that is presented with finder is just plain old wacky since its predetermined by apple. The taskbar is just plain off with applications coming poping in the osx bar in who knows where. And of course we all know that ctrl+click is SO much better then hitting right click. I dont know what Apple's concept of minimize and maximize is but its way off. And i guess its nice knowing that if i click the close button, the application is merely hidden?
Please OSX is low-market eyecandy with some inconsistant practices all around the ball. I do enjoy using it though, but the interface is not one of the reasons why
Reply #40 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:36 PM
| Thanks for your opinion. The only OS that has a fairly consistent GUI is OS X, don't even try to say any distro of Linux does. Installing software isn't easy? Double-click an icon, wow, thats hard! What do you suggest, in your infinite wisdom, for a home user? Something that you can do home user things on like play games, buy a peripheral and have the necessary drivers for it to work with your OS? Oh, and the choice of Windows applications is small? Compared to what? And OpenOffice doesn't have the polish of OpenOffice, huh? A monopoly is something or someone that has EXCLUSIVE control over something. If MS was a monopoly, there would be no Linux, no Apple, etc. |
Ummm that was a post in response to Koombas words to prove that he was just spouting opinions. And one of these days, You SHOULD compare the windows choice of applications to the Linux choice of application....cause the reality is.....Linux severely blows windows away. In fact one of the main themes of Linux is choice. Compare the DEs of linuc and windows.....In windows you have explorer DE....In Linux you have kde,gnome,xfve, and WMS including Blackbox, fluxbox,Enlightenment,fvwm2, and about 20+ others.
And also OSX has the LEAST consistent of all the UI. It has no damn Start bar for crying out load. The file structure that is presented with finder is just plain old wacky since its predetermined by apple. The taskbar is just plain off with applications coming poping in the osx bar in who knows where. And of course we all know that ctrl+click is SO much better then hitting right click. I dont know what Apple's concept of minimize and maximize is but its way off. And i guess its nice knowing that if i click the close button, the application is merely hidden?
Please OSX is low-market eyecandy with some inconsistant practices all around the ball. I do enjoy using it though, but the interface is not one of the reasons why
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Sunday, July 3, 2005 4:30 PM
WRONG. If there not a monopoly how is it that they are being forced to alter thier Windows XP versions in Europe and that 90% of prebuilt computers come with XP? If they not a monopoly than how come Linux hasn't become mainstream or Apple for that matter? Why is it MS spreads FUD about other OS systems?
Some people need to open up there eyes...
Microsoft may not be the AT&T of old but they are some sort of monopoly.