Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorscience
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: genesis@pcstru

    so, it is not any good then...


    For what? Compared to what?

    I've clicked a bootloader into a PDP8, via dull orange and yellow duck billed dip switches. The lighting up of a single screen pixel once gave me more satisfaction than any throwaway 'app' ever will. All the computers in my life, from the Xeon based 24 core, 96GB vSphere hosts to the 8 pin Microchip devices simply fill me with shock and jaw drop awe. Some of them can beat me at chess.

    What is not to like about technology today?


    *slow clap*

    Well said. Technology is awesome. Computers are the most amazing things humans have created themselves. Linux, Windows, x86, x64, ARM, 4G, LTE, rope memory, PDP8s....it's all amazing.
    • CommentAuthorscience
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: DuracellYeah, because big corporate buyers are just sooo much less demanding and easier to please than "the average user" ...
    Big corporations assume they will need professional IT support in substantial quantities and a full time help desk setup. Individual users and small businesses can't afford on the fly help from Geek Squad and similar companies at $90+ an hour very much. They can't mass install upgrades and changes and application programs. They are stuck with Sam and Susie in India who always seem to want them to start by reformatting their hard drive. And that's if they can get ANYONE to help them without extra charges.
    Big corporations tend to assume / demand that they can continue to drive their costs down. Just look at the whole kerfuffle about Starbucks and other multinationals paying hardly any tax in the UK. Or just ask anyone who works for any company providing anything to them. They do NOT tend to just meekly assume that they have to continue to spend their shareholders' money in order to provide expensive services to users because of fixable flaws in some other products or services that they are already paying someone else for ...

    Now before you invoke the "race to the bottom" argument and assert that this obsession with continuously reducing costs is what has compromised the quality of MS software over the years, bear in mind that MS doesn't have as notoriously a bad reputation for underpaying and under-resourcing its staff and sub-contractors as ... Apple (Foxconn) ...
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: pcstruIf only they knew what you know Mary. If only.
    Many know.

    Do they? It seems when pressed, even the designer of the greatest OS ever thought of, YugoOS, is rather vague about the particular use metaphors which make it so easy to use, so robust and reliable and so cheap. ISTR your (professional) relationship with an actual software developer ended in tears.

    Few give a shit about the end user, especially at MS. From the start, all they cared about was money.

    What a silly thing to say. Of course they care about money. I know YugoOS is still free, but most of us still have to work for a living. However, I've not personally met a developer who got into programming for the money. They tend to first be problem solvers - and fairly passionate about that. Second they are geeks, they like technology and like to create things using it. Money is somewhere on the list, but it would be unusual to find a developer where that is all they cared about. Mind you, I'm sure your extensive experience of developers trumps min. Didn't you know one from HP once?

    As a company of course MS want's to make money and that should be at the top of their priority list. How silly to think it could be any other way. They don't currently seem to be as good at making money as Apple, but if they didn't make any money they simply wouldn't survive. Perhaps you could supply some examples of companies you like that don't make money?


    And, unlike Apple, they never saw that as very much correlated with pleasing the average user as long as corporations kept buying and manufacturers mandated including their products with new computers.


    And your evidence for that is what? As Duracell points out, businesses and corporations are usually quite focused on value. They want to minimise costs in order to maximise profits.

    The problem with your criticisms is they are misplaced, anecdotal and frankly, they appear increasingly unhinged. They are laughable when you think that you are running about the world shoving pirate copies of XP onto laptops which you then use to torture innocent users who could instead be experiencing the wonders of an alternative product. You tell us often how you hate the products, how they are only in it for the money, how they don't care and how badly designed and shockingly executed the software is; and then you give it away to people, like a crack dealer giving folks a free first hit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    As a company of course MS want's to make money



    Not taking sides here because don't care. But do watch those little flyspecks in the heat of the argument.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Angus
    As a company of course MS want's to make money



    Not taking sides here because don't care. But do watch those little flyspecks in the heat of the argument.


    Your first has no subject.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: Angus
    As a company of course MS want's to make money



    Not taking sides here because don't care. But do watch those little flyspecks in the heat of the argument.


    Your first has no subject.


    Virtual. Charming idiosyncracy.
    • CommentAuthorkorkskrew
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: TrimWhy do naked women dancers spring to my mind?
    Why wouldn't they? They're always springing bouncing into mine
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: pcstruIf only they knew what you know Mary. If only.
    Many know. Few give a shit about the end user, especially at MS. From the start, all they cared about was money. And, unlike Apple, they never saw that as very much correlated with pleasing the average user as long as corporations kept buying and manufacturers mandated including their products with new computers.


    This is raving nonsense, as you have been told many a time. OF COURSE all they care about is money. But in the pursuit of money, they are trying to make a product that pleases customers.

    Why did corporations keep buying? Why does Microsoft spend so much money on focus groups and beta testing and all that crap. If you wish to make observations about the final product and declare it unsatisfactory, that might be interesting.

    If you want to invent motives for the thousands of people who work at microsoft, then you should expect me to mock and make fun of you. Of course, this post is about as mocking as I get.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: enginerdthis post is about as mocking as I get.


    Needs work.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012 edited
     
    Obviously, I can't get in Gates' or Ballmer's minds to determine their objectives. I can tell you that their execution has been consistently piss poor. And Windows 8 seems to fit right into the mold.

    I mean how hard can it be to retain an alternative XP/Win7-like UI within 8?
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: enginerdWhy does Microsoft spend so much money on focus groups and beta testing and all that crap.


    Good question.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugoIt sounds like an experience almost nobody not in the IT community and not forced to use it at work will want.
    Who in the IT world would want the RT device? Microsoft has built a hybrid device, and hybrid devices rarely do well.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: pcstruIf only they knew what you know Mary. If only.
    Many know. Few give a shit about the end user, especially at MS. From the start, all they cared about was money. And, unlike Apple, they never saw that as very much correlated with pleasing the average user as long as corporations kept buying and manufacturers mandated including their products with new computers.
    If MSFT cared enough about money, IMO they would do a better job. I think it is just a dysfunctional culture that has a hard time questioning itself and so it makes the same mistakes over and over.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: joshsIf MSFT cared enough about money, IMO they would do a better job. I think it is just a dysfunctional culture that has a hard time questioning itself and so it makes the same mistakes over and over.
    Exactly. And it has been that way since the time that Gates stole his first OS from whoever it was he purloined it from.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    Posted By: maryyugo
    Posted By: joshsIf MSFT cared enough about money, IMO they would do a better job. I think it is just a dysfunctional culture that has a hard time questioning itself and so it makes the same mistakes over and over.
    Exactly. And it has been that way since the time that Gates stole his first OS from whoever it was he purloined it from.
    Gates bought CP/M 86 rights from Seattle Software for $50K. It was an incredibly shrewd move. It helped that his mother was on a charity board with the president of IBM. IBM had gone to see the author of CP/M in Pacific Grove, CA, but he was too busy flying his airplane to meet with them. They then went on to Seattle to see Gates about licensing his really shitty BASIC. They bemoaned the OS situation and he jumped on the opportunity by telling them that he had one. The rest is history.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    I don't remember exactly but I thought there was more to that story and it wasn't pretty. I could be wrong. It might be just another silly conspiracy theory.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2012
     
    I remember or at least in my old age I think I remember the story quite well. Gates didn't tell the two guys who made up Seattle Computer that he had IBM in his pocket. He made an offer and they accepted it. They later sued and IIRC lost. Doing a little fact checking I see that Seattle Computer called their product by a different name than CP/M 86, but it was for all intent and purpose their port of CP/M to the 8086.
  1.  
    The programer at the Seattle computer company was named Tim Patterson I bought a few machines from him for process control in a photo finishing lab. and yes there is a bit more to that story.
    They called it DOS (disk operating system) and yes it was a port of CPM for use with Intel 8086 based hardware
    I have a couple of sets of it on 8 inch floppy disks.
    It ran 5 and 10 mb Winchester drives
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2012
     
    Posted By: Terry LingleThe programer at the Seattle computer company was named Tim Patterson I bought a few machines from him for process control in a photo finishing lab. and yes there is a bit more to that story.
    They called it DOS (disk operating system) and yes it was a port of CPM for use with Intel 8086 based hardware
    I have a couple of sets of it on 8 inch floppy disks.
    It ran 5 and 10 mb Winchester drives
    An old colleague of mine obtained a copy of Seattle Software's OS way, way back when. I recall how excited he was that they had done the port to an 8086. He was running it on an S100 box.