PDA

View Full Version : I hate Bill Gates because...



Peet42
June 28th, 2003, 03:04 AM
Nope, not because of Windows. Nor Office. Not even DOS. I've hated him since the days of Microsoft BASIC.

Billy boy wrote that one himself, you see, so he takes all the blame. He decided what keywords to include and what to leave out... He didn't fully understand the "MAT()" command (matrix manipulation, as defined in Kemeny & Kurtz original spec. for the language) so he just left it out; didn't even bother to mention it...

This means that a whole generation of programmers were deprived of one of the most powerful tools in the language, and Billy boy single-handedly delayed 3D graphics development by at least ten years. :x

CP/M User
June 28th, 2003, 03:39 AM
Well I just said 'all of the above', in a sense all of that bugs me! :-)

Even finding some bootleg BASIC ROM for one of their 6809
computers (like the TRS-80 colour, or Dragon machines),
was the order of the day because Microsoft don't release the
copyright of it! IT'S WORTHLESS! :-)

Windows 3.1 is definitely better than Windows 95, or I might
have used some joint venture OS which IBM & Microsoft
played a part in (namely DOS & OS/2). MS-DOS is a joke
though! All of those not entirely 100% IBM compatables
used it & eventually they were doomed when Microsoft
came out & brought out the Flight Simulator! :-(

As for the BASIC which was written to run on an Altair!
Well... :-)

Cheers.

Thomas Hillebrandt
June 28th, 2003, 12:21 PM
I can only say that I think Billy Boy is cool... Only a really cool guy can start a company that writes such buggy software, and still end up as the richest guy on the planet :twisted:

Erik
June 28th, 2003, 01:06 PM
All in all I am fairly neutral about Bill.

I'm not sure that most people really give him a fair shake or not.

The software Microsoft produces DOES seem to have more bugs on average then most, but they do produce a ton of it and make a lot of very useful applications (and some that suck rocks. So much for the law of averages)

Bill Gates had a vision from the earliest days of the personal computer and applied himself to follow through on it. So did Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and a bunch of other folks.

Only Bill, because he IS on top, takes the bulk of the heat.

Fair or not, though, I know I wouldn't care if I were worth 50+ billion.

Erik

Thomas Hillebrandt
June 28th, 2003, 01:24 PM
Well...to be fair. I mean, Windows 9x and above (any version, really) does have a LOT of bugs. It makes strange errors, crashes on whim and isn't always particularily backwards compatible. However, it has made a lot of things easier. I mean - back in "the old days", installing a new video-card, or a soundcard, or a SCSI-adapter, or whatever, you'd have to fight long and hard with jumper-settings, and IRQ's and DMA's and whatnot to make it work. These days Windows does do most of the things for you. Granted, while I used Win98, every time I installed new hardware (which I did a lot, since I dragged home discarded hardware from my previous workplace, and needed to check if it worked), I had to reset the IRQ-settings for my sound-card, bit still. It does do a lot of the tedious stuff automatically. Consequently, it makes computing more accessible for the average person.

Of course, sometimes, it's a little TOO user-friendly. For instance, using XP, it seems to be so hell-bent on the security advantages of having to log on to your machine, that it will not allow you NOT to log in (as in, logging in as standard user). So you can't remove the login window (or at least, I haven't figured that part out yet - if anyone knows how, I'll be happy to know).

But, supporting the older MS products I'll just like to say: If anyone wants to donate MS-DOS v1.0 and/or MS Windows v1.0 to me, I'll be much obliged :P

CP/M User
June 28th, 2003, 01:56 PM
"Thomas Hillebrandt" wrote in message:

> I can only say that I think Billy Boy is cool...
> Only a really cool guy can start a company
> that writes "such" buggy software, and
> still end up as the richest guy on the planet.

The problem with that is MS-DOS & CP/M
were neither buggy! Obviously a rip-off of
CP/M! Heh! :-)

Cheers.

CP/M User
June 28th, 2003, 02:04 PM
"Thomas Hillebrandt" wrote in message:

> Well...to be fair. I mean, Windows 9x and
> above (any version, really) does have a
> LOT of bugs. It makes strange errors,
> crashes on whim and isn't always
> particularily backwards compatible.
> However, it has made a lot of things easier.
> I mean - back in "the old days", installing
> a new video-card, or a soundcard, or a
> SCSI-adapter, or whatever, you'd have
> to fight long and hard with jumper-settings,
> and IRQ's and DMA's and whatnot to make
> it work. These days Windows does do most
> of the things for you. Granted, while I used
> Win98, every time I installed new hardware
> (which I did a lot, since I dragged home
> discarded hardware from my previous
> workplace, and needed to check if it worked),
> I had to reset the IRQ-settings for my
> sound-card, bit still. It does do a lot of the
> tedious stuff automatically. Consequently, it
> makes computing more accessible for the
> average person.

This is Billy Boys answer to the Mac. They just
want to get all the non-computer users using
the computers. It won't stop until that happens
because they are after their money. The virus
writers out there must have some really big
smiles about them too, because they are also
out to get the non-computer users with their
viruses. The hardware companies are having
a ball too, because they think, that the better
& faster their technology the more people will
be using it.

This is why people should go back to school &
use some ancient OS with the 'net.
Unfortunately, schools only give you the
latest.

My two cents.

Cheers.

CP/M User
June 28th, 2003, 02:11 PM
"CP/M User" wrote in message:

> This is why people should go back to school &
> use some ancient OS with the 'net.
> Unfortunately, schools only give you the
> latest.

Actually, Lets blame it on the schools instead.
They should be teaching how to use a vintage
computer! ;-)

Cheers.

Erik
June 28th, 2003, 05:45 PM
But, supporting the older MS products I'll just like to say: If anyone wants to donate MS-DOS v1.0 and/or MS Windows v1.0 to me, I'll be much obliged :P

I can make you a copy of PC-DOS 1.0 but I'm keeping the original! :)

Erik

Peet42
June 30th, 2003, 12:13 AM
<Geek mode>
CP/M User, you'll find they were *6809* based machines, not 6509... A cool CPU, with mnemonics such as "BRA" and "SEX"...:lol:
</Geek mode>

Peet42
June 30th, 2003, 12:17 AM
Thomas H., I have a runtime copy of Windows 2.0 somewhere; it was bundled with Excel 1.0, and fits on a single 720K floppy. The amusing thing is that it's so old that no current version of Windows recognises it as a "sibling", thus you can run it inside a window! :lol:

I guess a floppy image would ZIP down to under 500K... Would you like me to e-mail you one if I find it again in the near future?

CP/M User
June 30th, 2003, 01:33 AM
"Peet42" wrote in message:

> CP/M User, you'll find they were *6809* based
> machines, not 6509... A cool CPU, with
> mnemonics such as "BRA" and "SEX"...LOL

Okay, I've fixed it. Yes they were 6809 not 6509
based machines. I getting muddled up with the
6509 processors! ;-)

Cheers.

CP/M User
June 30th, 2003, 01:38 AM
"Peet42" wrote in message:

> Thomas H., I have a runtime copy of
> Windows 2.0 somewhere; it was
> bundled with Excel 1.0, and fits on a
> single 720K floppy. The amusing thing
> is that it's so old that no current version
> of Windows recognises it as a "sibling",
> thus you can run it inside a window! LOL.

> I guess a floppy image would ZIP down to
> under 500K... Would you like me to e-mail
> you one if I find it again in the near future?

Hope I haven't send the wrong impression
about Windows, but I actually don't mind
Windows 2.x & Windows 3.1. I've got a copy
of Windows 286 (don't know which sorry) &
also found a site (quite some time ago which
had Windows 2.x software & programming
stuff for Latice C). I actually tried to get a
copy of Reversi from my Windows 286 to
Windows 3.1, but it actually comes up with
a message about running Windows 286
software on Windows 3.1. Still I think it
ran! :-)

Cheers.

Thomas Hillebrandt
June 30th, 2003, 03:36 AM
Thomas H., I have a runtime copy of Windows 2.0 somewhere; Would you like me to e-mail you one if I find it again in the near future?

Sure...I mean, collection-wise I "only" want the original disk, but it would be great to try out Windows 2.0...So an image would be cool...Anytime you feel like it! :wink:

CP/M User
July 2nd, 2003, 01:54 AM
"Thomas Hillebrandt" wrote in message:

>> Thomas H., I have a runtime copy of Windows 2.0
>> somewhere; Would you like me to e-mail you one
>> if I find it again in the near future?

> Sure...I mean, collection-wise I "only" want the
> original disk, but it would be great to try out
> Windows 2.0...So an image would be cool...
> Anytime you feel like it! ;-)

Heh! Obtaining the original disks for Windows 2.x
must be a fluke :-)

The programming section has been rather quiet,
any interested programmers here interested to
write Windows 2.x programs? (The only language
I know about which allows writing Windows 2.x
programs is Latice C).

Cheers.

Terry Yager
July 2nd, 2003, 10:53 AM
Just this morning I was playing around with my Tandy 102, for which Bill wrote the software. That is one of my favorite programs of all time. Even B.G. can't be wrong all the time...

--T

Thomas Hillebrandt
July 2nd, 2003, 02:24 PM
I can make you a copy of PC-DOS 1.0 but I'm keeping the original! :)

Hmm...Well, you're welcome to email me an image of the disk or something...As long as I can't have the original, it'd be pretty dumb (I think) to start wasting money on postage... :roll:

CP/M User
August 3rd, 2003, 02:21 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Just this morning I was playing around with my
> Tandy 102, for which Bill wrote the software.
> That is one of my favorite programs of all time.
> Even B.G. can't be wrong all the time...

Well some of the earlier stuff I don't mind, like Windows 2.x or 3.x,
but the quicker things have been becomming the more errors seem
to appear. Thought it could also be the hardware manufacturers
fault, but which I frown upon.

Cheers.

CP/M User
August 3rd, 2003, 02:25 AM
"Thomas Hillebrandt"

>> I can make you a copy of PC-DOS 1.0 but I'm
>> keeping the original! :)

> Hmm...Well, you're welcome to email me an
> image of the disk or something...As long as I
> can't have the original, it'd be pretty dumb (I
> think) to start wasting money on postage...

CP/M-86 v1.1 is also nice to have, which sort of
machine do you have PC-DOS 1.0 running on?

Cheers.

Erik
August 3rd, 2003, 09:54 AM
Hmm...Well, you're welcome to email me an image of the disk or something...As long as I can't have the original, it'd be pretty dumb (I think) to start wasting money on postage... :roll:

Hehe. I'll have to figure out how to do that (with my systems) one of these days.

Once I get moved I'll be setting up an old 486 as a media transfer machine. It should be able to do everything 5.25 and 3.5 once I'm done.

Erik

Thomas Hillebrandt
August 3rd, 2003, 11:20 AM
Up until a few days ago, I had both 3.5" and 5.25" on my 333mHz dual pentium II Intergraph TD-225 (lovely machine, that!). Still have the drive there, but installing a third hard drive, I needed the power. Need to get another PSU, or maybe just one o'them cable-splitters (or what ever they're called).

Anyway, an image, like I said. Don't go nuts, though...It'd just be for the fun of it. Same thing goes for you, CP/Muser - that CP/M would be fun too, but only as an image. I just don't find it feasible to spend money on copies :shock: :)

Speaking of CP/M, I just dug out an Epson PX-4 at a market today. Nice little machine...I already have the PX-8, but I never got the PSU for that one, so I never tested it. This one has the PSU (and nothing else), and it works... :D
Got a Philips Videopac G7000 too, but without games and PSU, so that's pretty useless ATM...

CP/M User
August 3rd, 2003, 02:04 PM
"Thomas Hillebrandt" wrote in message:

Hi Thomas,

> Anyway, an image, like I said. Don't go nuts,
> though...It'd just be for the fun of it. Same
> thing goes for you, CP/Muser - that CP/M
> would be fun too, but only as an image. I
> just don't find it feasible to spend money on
> copies. "shock" :)

You don't need to spend money on CP/M, it's
also perfectly legal if you're going to use it
for personal use.

> Speaking of CP/M, I just dug out an Epson
> PX-4 at a market today. Nice little machine...
> I already have the PX-8, but I never got
> the PSU for that one, so I never tested it.
> This one has the PSU (and nothing else),
> and it works... :D

Heh! :-)

> Got a Philips Videopac G7000 too, but
> without games and PSU, so that's pretty
> useless ATM...

Oh dear! :-(

dongfeng
December 1st, 2003, 07:03 AM
Of course, sometimes, it's a little TOO user-friendly. For instance, using XP, it seems to be so hell-bent on the security advantages of having to log on to your machine, that it will not allow you NOT to log in (as in, logging in as standard user). So you can't remove the login window (or at least, I haven't figured that part out yet - if anyone knows how, I'll be happy to know

Easy! I assume you only want the one account (yours) to log straight in to Windows? Go to Control Panel and click on "User Accounts". At the bottom of the page, do you see an account marked "ASP.net"? If so, click on the picture, and select "delete account" from the bottom of the list. Also click on your account name and remove the password if you have one. Also, disable the Guest account if it is turned on.

That should work :)

There's also another annoyance that it will go back to the login screen if you go into power-save mode. In Display Properties click "power" at bottom of page, then "advanced" tab remove the tick in the box marked "prompt for password when computer returns from standby".

hope this helps 8)

Unknown_K
December 1st, 2003, 11:22 PM
I think Microsoft gets a bum wrap for being a better deal maker then the others. I dont think gates is a bad person, or too snobby considering he is so rich (Ellison reminds me of a rich snob). Xp is a bit too streamlined for the non tech user but I love win2k. I have been using windows since 3.0 and it has ran everything I have ever needed, can go wrong with that.

People tend to hate the over succesfull players in any field. Have you ever heard of any company that didnt try to be a monopoly? Everybody twists arms in deals if they can get away with it, especially smaller companies with a product/patent you can get around using.

carlsson
December 5th, 2003, 09:27 AM
Windows used to be buggy and insecure. I strongly believe it has been MUCH improved in the last few years (since Windows 2000). Insecure it still is, but so are a few other operating systems installed with too many options turned on by default. Crashing is something it does much less often, thanks to better cooperating drivers and 3rd party applications.

I keep telling people who blame Windows only for their computer is crashing to try a clean install and be VERY careful about the software, utilities and "accelerators" you install. It may not only be spyware, it may also be poorly programmed spyware which will sink your computer despite it was meant to or not.

Most software probably is quite buggy, but the big user base will make Windows bugs, both the small and the fatal ones look much worse, in particular as it takes eons before everyone have had the opportunity to fix the bugs in their installation. Remember how Seagate hard drives (at least SCSI ones) were said to be the worst hard drive you could get. Part of it might be true, but they also delivered vast amounts of fairly cheap hard drives which means more units can die. Maxtor and Quantum were much better, but sold fewer and cost more. IBM later got the same reputation with at least one series of their IDE drives, but I'm not sure if it still is said to be true or not.

The really big thing about Microsoft which annoys me (maybe it is in the "Other" option of the poll) is how they steal existing technologies and ideas, add or subtract some detail, rebadge and patent it and call it a major breakthrough in computing. Often it is technologies which haven't reached the big audience yet, so many IT directors can't tell there already are better, cheaper and more flexible alternatives to Microsoft solutions.

Unknown_K
December 5th, 2003, 09:44 AM
The really big thing about Microsoft which annoys me (maybe it is in the "Other" option of the poll) is how they steal existing technologies and ideas, add or subtract some detail, rebadge and patent it and call it a major breakthrough in computing. Often it is technologies which haven't reached the big audience yet, so many IT directors can't tell there already are better, cheaper and more flexible alternatives to Microsoft solutions.

Inventions are useless untill you get people to use them for something usefull. Some ancient greek was known for making a steam enguine that would spin around (basically a toy) and never did anything with it. A few thousand years later somebody used the same concept as a power plant that had a great affect on society. I am an engineer and I know first hand that without marketing just about everything I could design would never get used no matter how well it worked. Microsoft is a good marketing machine which is why their products own a few markets. Are there better products out there? I would bet there are but you probably wont know about them untill microsoft either copies it or buys them out.

I find it funny how some people will research the hell out of what new tv to buy or what kind of rotissery to purchase but wont actively research or even compare competing hardware/software solutions in their office environment that they have control over.

carlsson
December 5th, 2003, 10:13 AM
A few recent examples with Windows Server 2003, which I was introduced to a month ago:
The Remote Terminal or whatever it is called has been improved so you can connect to a virtual screen on somebody else's computer or server and use it from there. VNC anybody?
Some kind of project management where you can store documents in several versions, leave messages and Intranet web space. Sounds like CVS in combination with Sourceforgish.

Of course an invention is worthless without marketing it, but would Microsoft lose money on incorporating and cooperate with existing technologies rather than making own versions of it? Compare how Apple released their own web browser - Safari - which is built on Konqueror. They were very proud of not only getting an excellent (as they claim) browser for MacOS, but also providing tons of bug fixes and improvements to the open source (I believe) code base of Konqueror. I don't know to what extent the Konqueror developers jumped with joy, but how difficult would it be to trace stealing of code and concepts if Apple had developed Safari as a completely closed product?

Unknown_K
December 5th, 2003, 10:47 AM
Microsoft doesnt really want to sell utilities, they want to sell full blown apps and OS's that cost a few bucks. They are allways adding these small utilities or features to their main products to keep people updating (spending more money) their setup. Why would MS partner with somebody so that that company satisfied their customers percieved need without having to buy it in the newest version of microsofts product?

MS and apple are a bit different. MS makes their cash on selling software while apple makes thier money selling lampshades that happen to be computers (hardware company). Apple went a little out of their way to make safari just in case MS kills explorer for the mac and leaves their customers high and dry for a browser. Since apple pretty much gives away alot of their commodity apps (to make their hardware sell) there is no point in doing a browser from scratch if they could just hack an opensource version and make it look nice on OSX.

CP/M User
December 20th, 2003, 05:29 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote in message:

> People tend to hate the over succesfull players
> in any field. Have you ever heard of any
> company that didnt try to be a monopoly?

No, but with me, it's more than just the success,
it's their ever changing ways. However, this is
only part of the problem, because it's a ever
changing thing. Microsoft produce newer
softwares to support the ever changing systems.

Part of the problem for a computer user, is the
great deal of money spent, for a computer every
3 years or so. New Computers by definition, don't
loose value, however there's no such thing as a
new computer! ;-)

Once upon a time, things were once built to last &
while not everything you buy will last, computers
seem to be out of date before they pack it in!

So the problem's are that while your Toaster lasts 5
years, it would be better if it lasted a life time. A
Computer is the dead opposite, in that it'll go on &
on, even when it's worthless! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Unknown_K
December 20th, 2003, 06:23 PM
If a toaster lasted a lifetime the company making them would be out of buisiness in 5 years since sales would drop down to nothing.

Terry Yager
December 20th, 2003, 06:30 PM
Once upon a time, things were once built to last &
while not everything you buy will last, computers
seem to be out of date before they pack it in!

So the problem's are that while your Toaster lasts 5
years, it would be better if it lasted a life time. A
Computer is the dead opposite, in that it'll go on &
on, even when it's worthless! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

I've just spent the past week-and-a-half learning to program a 25-year old operating system on 20-year old hardware. There's no reason I want to know about CP/M system calls other than for my own amusement. My Kaypro 10 will never be worthless as far as I'm concerned. I'll always use and love it...

--T

CP/M User
December 20th, 2003, 07:27 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote in message:

> If a toaster lasted a lifetime the
> company making them would be
> out of buisiness in 5 years since
> sales would drop down to nothing.

Persisely, would that be
marverolous! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

CP/M User
December 20th, 2003, 07:43 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

>> Once upon a time, things were once built to last &
>> while not everything you buy will last, computers
>> seem to be out of date before they pack it in!

>> So the problem's are that while your Toaster lasts 5
>> years, it would be better if it lasted a life time. A
>> Computer is the dead opposite, in that it'll go on &
>> on, even when it's worthless! ;-)

> I've just spent the past week-and-a-half
> learning to program a 25-year old
> operating system on 20-year old hardware.
> There's no reason I want to know about
> CP/M system calls other than for my own
> amusement. My Kaypro 10 will never be
> worthless as far as I'm concerned. I'll
> always use and love it...

Sorry, I wasn't speaking of the personal value that
Kaypro 10 is to you & there's no doubt that others
would put a reasonible amount on a computer,
based upon how badily they want one.

IBMs I feel are more notorious for having little
value to people over time particular the way
computers are looking at the moment. Still I
still have my good ol' XT, 386's, 486's & ol'
Pentium, which makes for a nice machine for
DOS games. My 386's give me reason to improve
my programming skills, as in with TP 3 it might
do what I need it to, only at a slower pace.

Users, who look into using their computer as a
business frame of mind, simply use a computer,
not because they like it, but it's what there've
been given to work with. People like that would
put a no value on your Kaypro, but that's the
limit of their vision. For a long time people have
been asking for GUIs & easy to use systems,
now they got what they want, it just seems that
all they want now is faster systems, which is
what there're getting! ;-)

So in sight of what I said about worth, it works
two ways, the personal worth which we as users
have for our machines & the actual worth of a
machine! It's like you walk into a pawn shop &
they ask for 2 dollars for your Kaypro, or if you
market your machine to the right people, then
they would pay more! :-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
December 21st, 2003, 11:21 AM
In all fairness, I have to admit that my (original) Kaypro II was soon rendered obsolete when I aquired a (newer) Kaypro 1. (Double sided, 400k drives and a 63k TPA, thanks to the "new" Universal rom, which contained most of CP/M in the firmware!) A couple of years later, that too was obsoletized when I aquired the 10. (Hard drive, baby! I've never looked back.) I still have my older Kaypros tho, even tho they're "obsolete". I think they're only "worthless" to the buyers on eBay, who seem to have no respect for older hardware. (An original Kaypro II with all the original software and docs just sold yesterday for a mere $61.00, nowhere near it's true value to collectors like ourselves.)

--T

CP/M User
December 21st, 2003, 11:42 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> In all fairness, I have to admit that my
> (original) Kaypro II was soon rendered
> obsolete when I aquired a (newer)
> Kaypro 1. (Double sided, 400k drives
> and a 63k TPA, thanks to the "new"
> Universal rom, which contained most of
> CP/M in the firmware!) A couple of
> years later, that too was obsoletized
> when I aquired the 10. (Hard drive,
> baby! I've never looked back.) I still
> have my older Kaypros tho, even tho
> they're "obsolete". I think they're only
> "worthless" to the buyers on eBay, who
> seem to have no respect for older
> hardware. (An original Kaypro II with
> all the original software and docs just
> sold yesterday for a mere $61.00,
> nowhere near it's true value to
> collectors like ourselves.)

Well there's no harm done continuning to
use Vintage computers, basically it's my
main activity when playing with
computers.

Cheers.

Unknown_K
December 21st, 2003, 11:58 AM
The "real" value of old vintage gear is scrap value. Anything more then that is because of collectors supply and demand just like in the coin, stamp, luger, baseball card market.

The only CP/M any of my computers can run is 3.0 for my Commodore 128. The reason I have my C128 along with Amiga 500/1200 Atari ST, Apple IIgs,etc is because I didnt have one when they were popular and now that they are inexpensive (and I have the time to play) I want to see what they were all about. Do these things have any real value to 99% of people? I would say no, they just take up space to them. To me they have value so I buy them, upgrade them, find software for them, and use them. Would I want to have a C128 for my only computer? The answer to that is hell no. There is a time and a place for all technology new and old.

CP/M User
December 21st, 2003, 12:24 PM
"Unknown_K" wrote in message:

> The only CP/M any of my computers
> can run is 3.0 for my Commodore 128.

Oh dear, I've tried programming CP/M 3.0 on my Amstrad CPC6128,
& I wasn't totally impressed with it. While I don't fully
understand the way it works & how it uses the extra 64k on my
6128, it's much tricker because of it using the extra 64k.
CP/M 2.2 I like more, because it fits into 64k & seems easier
to write things to memory (such as the screen memory), where's
CP/M 3.0 involves switching memory banks! Never the less CP/M
3.0 is nice to use & you don't need to toggle CTRL + C when
changing disks, but that's just a feature of CP/M 2.2! ;-)

> The reason I have my C128 along with
> Amiga 500/1200 Atari ST, Apple IIgs,
> etc is because I didnt have one when
> they were popular and now that they
> are inexpensive (and I have the time
> to play) I want to see what they were
> all about. Do these things have any
> real value to 99% of people? I would
> say no, they just take up space to
> them. To me they have value so I buy
> them, upgrade them, find software for
> them, and use them. Would I want to
> have a C128 for my only computer?
> The answer to that is hell no. There is
> a time and a place for all technology
> new and old.

I not sure, but I think you can get CP/M-68 for your Amiga &
Atari ST machines. CP/M-68 was designed for use for a 68000
based processors, but it's perhaps a question of if the BIOS
needs to be modified. In case of CP/M-86 which happened to
be available for the IBM PC/XT & modified to work with later
IBMs, there were also other variants of CP/M-86 for non-IBM
compatable machines & I belive that the BIOS is the main
difference in those variants.

Cheers.

Terry Yager
March 4th, 2004, 06:47 AM
Here's a link to an "I hate Bill Gates" webpage. Enjoy:

http://www.magnet-i.com/magnet/ezine/15Jan1999/ff

--T

CP/M User
March 4th, 2004, 09:01 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Here's a link to an "I hate Bill Gates" webpage. Enjoy:

> http://www.magnet-i.com/magnet/ezine/15Jan1999/ff

I hate Gill Bates (son of Norman) because I'm already
running his OS & have two of his Windows programs
running, clicking on yer link there will open another of
his programs & possibly crash the system, errors
usually occur in 3's here! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Terry Yager
March 4th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I hate Gill Bates (son of Norman) because I'm already
running his OS & have two of his Windows programs
running, clicking on yer link there will open another of
his programs & possibly crash the system, errors
usually occur in 3's here! ;-)

Cheers,
CP/M User.

Ain't multi-tasking grand? (Call me old-school but...I always thought that if you had to perform multiple tasks, you should be doing them on multiple computers).

--T

CP/M User
March 7th, 2004, 05:36 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote:

> Ain't multi-tasking grand? (Call me old-school
> but...I always thought that if you had to
> perform multiple tasks, you should be doing
> them on multiple computers).

I have no real reason why I need to multitask
(as long as I can do some work while printing
stuff out! ;-)

It's also worked well for those POP-UP ads
which everybody hates! Would not have
happened if the system was one task at a
time!

Cheers,
CP/M User.

A1239872
August 5th, 2004, 06:49 PM
I cant see how any one could like Bill Gates!!! He releases a window with full of bugs and says its the most stable windows ever and with the updates it'll be better. When I heard this I went to the store and took out a little bit more than $100 to buy a version of windows 98. When i got it I started experiencing crashes and LOTs of viruses and worms. I should have stuck with Win. 95, it was much more "stable" and reliable. Soon Win. XP came out and I forgot all about my previous Win 98 experience so I took out $130 to get a home edition. I played many sweet games and many cool applications with only one problem, once in a while the updates either slows down my copmuter or mess it up... than I have to reprogram. I reprogrammed my compputer about 5 times a year. I didn't even have to do that with my Win. 95, which crashes only about 2 times a year and u can still save all ur data with a recovery disk. The next time I hear the "your potencial, our passion" or "most stable windows ever" I'm gonna tell myself that that is TOTAL BS, and never get tricked by Bill Gates again (that is until I'm forced to buy a new windows) Y cant some one just write another kind of OS compatible to PC?????????

carlsson
August 6th, 2004, 04:49 AM
Y cant some one just write another kind of OS compatible to PC?
Oh, there are tons of other operating systems, ranging from academic proof of concepts, over obsolete things only collectors and fans/nerds care about, to the most recent series of Linuxes, BSDs, various real-time operating systems and many more.

What you want though is a Windows binary compatible operating system that is not Windows. Considering how narrow the path is only to make a system which looks and feels like a competitor, making one that works like another one probably is like begging to get sued unless you somehow manage to get a license. In that case I think Microsoft would be more interested in taking advantage of your design to make their own system better.

The alternative systems get better and more generally useable for every day, and as commercial and free 3rd party software becomes available for e.g. Linux as well as Windows, more users attempt to migrate. The more popular a system gets though, the more attention it gets from makers of viruses, worms and other hackers.

It may be possible to get an alternative ("free") system cheaper than a fully commercial system, but it relies on that you are technically advanced to take care of your computer. Speaking about costs, Microsoft has up to now charged every 3rd year when a new major version is released, while e.g. Apple charge for every minor update except fatal bug fixes. Personally I find that kind of pricing more disturbing.

A1239872
August 6th, 2004, 01:52 PM
Yes I know ALL about Linux... I downloaded a few versions... the problem? I cant run ANY of my all time favourite games and many softwares. I have being trying to get a windows binary compatible OS too. But I dont think Microsoft is willing to give up its source code and stuff. Man, thats why I dont lke Bill Gates... he's already the richest man on Earth and probably own the richest company too. And he's selling windows with bugs for such a high price...

carlsson
August 9th, 2004, 01:48 AM
So, the problem is not really Windows, but Windows' popularity which makes game developers rely on that the gamers will run Windows.. A few games appear in Linux flavours too, but the numbers are low.

Oh by the way, there are things like VMware, VirtualPC and WINE (?) which would emulate Windows environment inside something else. Windows would still cost as much and be as buggy, but crashes would not be as fatal on the behind layer. Not sure if all games work properly.

Microsoft still makes a lot of money (maybe less when the new licensing schemes will force big company customers to look for alternatives), but Bill and his wife also have been reported to give more money to welfare than anyone else, including the US government. Other rich people like the Walmart family are said to strongly dislike Bill Gates for this reason - if you have earned yourself rich, you should not give away money. I don't see people so often complaining about those guys, selling poor food and making a lot of money on it.

Unknown_K
August 9th, 2004, 02:07 AM
Gates gives money away because he has the more of it then anybody else, plus his wife got him into being charitable (don't think he did much before he got married and had kids).

Not everybody who gets filthy rich started out wanting to get that way, some people like the thrill of the startup, the power of being a CEO, or just want to change the world.

For the most part Bill Gates has paid his people very well, and alot of the early employees are multi millionaires because of the stock options. How many major layoffs has MS had?

The problem with Microsoft is that they own their initial target market and have trouble expanding into anything else.