 |
| |
|
|
Dale
|
 |
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:30
|
|
quote:
The Windows kernel is NOT UNIX. Just what the hell are you on?
|
From here.... http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html
"The Windows NT kernel was partially based on the OS/2 kernel that they created with IBM, and Windows 95 also borrows heavily from this code."
And OS/2's kernel is? Good boy, based on UNIX for Mainframes!
quote:
The GUI was designed by MS, with some help from IBM, for OS/2, you're right -- fail to see the implication behind this. |
Because the GUI was developed for OS/2 (but not released, IBM changed it).
NetBios/NetBuei: Okay, I am mistaken. They aren't Novel's. From here..... http://whatis.techtarget.com/defini...i212633,00.html
"It was created by IBM for its early PC Network, was adopted by Microsoft, and has since become a de facto industry standard."
Still not MS's.
Messaging: Messaging, as in the technology behind Microsoft Exchange. They bought it from Lotus (ccmail).
Command interpretor: DOS is the standard command-line interpretor in Windows (all versions). What was DOS written for? Originally for IBM mainframe systems as OS/2's command-line interpretor.
Not so stupid! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dale
From here.... http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html
"The Windows NT kernel was partially based on the OS/2 kernel that they created with IBM, and Windows 95 also borrows heavily from this code."
And OS/2's kernel is? Good boy, based on UNIX for Mainframes! |
OS/2's kernel was not based on UNIX for mainframes.
http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html
Your own source says it was built "from the ground up" -- they used concepts from the high end servers (time-slicing, etc), but NOT the code.
quote:
Because the GUI was developed for OS/2 (but not released, IBM changed it). |
Why does it matter who it was developed for, when Microsoft developed it?
quote:
Command interpretor: DOS is the standard command-line interpretor in Windows (all versions). What was DOS written for? Originally for IBM mainframe systems as OS/2's command-line interpretor. |
Excuse me? DOS predates OS/2 by MANY years, and it certainly was not written for IBM mainframe systems first, but for IBM's "new" personal computers.
If you want to make a real argument against MS' "technology", talk about DR-DOS and its purchase to form DOS. The stuff you try to pull in your post is inaccurate and just silly.
quote:
Not so stupid! |
No, still quite stupid. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dale
This is exactly what I'm saying. What's the point of taking away all these bundled components of windows, which technically weren't even theirs to begin with, and create a useless product? You going to take away all the components of every other product ripped-off other companies? |
As I've already debunked them all, I'm just going to repeat myself.
NT's kernel was loosely based on OS\2's, which IBM primarily developed. Fortunately, virtually all of that legacy code has been replaced in Windows 2000 and 2003. Hell, virtually all of NT has been rewritten since NT 3.0.
Windows' GUI was developed by MS and MS alone. Your argument that they did it "for" someone else (in reality, it was in a parternship, where MS was responsible for the interfacing) is laughable.
It's absurd for you to claim "most" of Windows' technology isn't theirs to begin with.
What's even more baffling is you haven't actually used the real cases where MS licensed other people's technologies and built on it to make a dominant product: Internet Explorer w/ Mosaic, and DOS with DR-DOS.
Last edited by Asher on 19-08-2003 at 09:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dale
|
|
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:30
|
|
Windows GUI MS's alone?  Not quite. Didn't you even READ the article? It clearly states that MS started working on the GUI of OS/2, grabbed all the good technology for it, dumped OS/2 v2 on IBM half finished and implemented these technologies in windows. DDE, OLE (ActiveX now) and COM are all IBM's, the fundamentals of windows. DDE looks after windows messaging (internal and external), OLE looks after graphics implementation (even in Win XP, ME, 2003), and COM does the command-line interpretation (even NOW).
So what don't you get? Microsoft flogged these critical 3 elements from IBM to make windows work.
As for partnership, no partnership. Xerox paid Microsoft to create a GUI platform for their high-end terminal printers. Windows v1 was born. Xerox didn't want it though, and even though MS didn't own the license or idea for it (it was Xerox's) they went ahead and released it under their own name.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Okay. I want you to think real hard on this one.
Programs need to interface with hardware. To do this, some kind of operating system (or at the very least, virtual machine) needs to handle this.
In order for this to happen, programs need a consistent interface that behaves the same across all platforms.
Even in the very unlikely event of someone making a cross-platform specification for system calls, windowing systems, etc -- every system will have its own quirks, and will require enormous resources for any program to be QA tested on tons of various OSes. Not to mention how glacial the development pace of operating systems would become, somewhat like what killed OpenGL for gaming in favor of DirectX.
Another option is to have a standardized virtual machine. But in this case, you're just trading a monopoly of an OS with a monopoly of a VM. The .NET runtime, BTW, runs on Windows, MacOS, BSD, and Linux. So you can run Windows .NET programs on many platforms...
So anyway, as you can see, the operating system industry is absolutely a natural monopoly. It's the only way to:
1) Keep technology advanced
2) Keep development costs down
3) Ease confusion at the end-user level with consistent-behaving computers
Of course, it's technically possible to force 100 different OSes into the market, but it'd just make everything chaotically terrible... |
I still didnt say u could resopnd to me. hush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dale
Windows GUI MS's alone? Not quite. Didn't you even READ the article? It clearly states that MS started working on the GUI of OS/2, grabbed all the good technology for it, dumped OS/2 v2 on IBM half finished and implemented these technologies in windows. DDE, OLE (ActiveX now) and COM are all IBM's, the fundamentals of windows. DDE looks after windows messaging (internal and external), OLE looks after graphics implementation (even in Win XP, ME, 2003), and COM does the command-line interpretation (even NOW). |
I'm not going to bother going into debunking these (which I could), because the point is moot.
COM, OLE/ActiveX, and DDE are all obsolete now in Windows, and they were never IBM's in the first place.
And just so you know, the source you mention is being somewhat liberal and misleading with the term "derived" -- COM and OLE/DDE were partially based on some theoretical research IBM was doing for OS/2, but never implemented.
Not to mention the first releases of all three were pathetically borderline-useless. 
You'll also have to find more sources than an OS/2 fanboy site with cleverly worded sentences implying something else. 
For example, the article implies DDE was an "IBM Technology". DDE first appeared in Windows 2.x in 1987, well before OS/2.
And the reason that they "still today maintain a crosslicensing agreement" is not because " because they still used so much of their technology" is used, but because...well...the agreement kinda expires in 2010(?), not whenever MS feels like it should end.
Last edited by Asher on 19-08-2003 at 09:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
No, it wasn't -- what got MS the "guilty" verdict was the internal memos, the OEM licensing restrictions, and the bullying of Netscape -- which is why all three were addressed in the settlement while IE, WMP, etc. are allowed to be bundled legally.
So you WERE correct when you said the courts already dealt with this and made a decision, so why is it that people continue to whine about it? It's even better when people such as yourself use the case as part of your argument, since it goes against it.
|
Asher, here is a portion of a summary of the DC Circuit opinion. I see you are in a major state of denial.
"Microsoft’s contractual and technological binding of IE and Windows violates Section 2. By commingling the IE software code as an irremovable part of Windows, the Court found, Microsoft sought to prevent OEMs, who would face increased support costs if they offered more than one browser, from offering Navigator or any other rival to IE. The Court further found that Microsoft’s commingling of IE and Windows code had no procompetitive benefit, and served only as an strategy to exclude competition."
http://164.109.59.52/library/pdf/clientalertanti.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dale
|
|
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:30
|
|
I hate it when a whole post gets lost! 
Anyways, what I was saying is COM/OLE/DDE are all still strongly used. COM(+) by C++ programmers, OLE/OCX (ActiveX) by Java/VB programmers, and what do you think DirectX 7 & 8 (the networking component) uses? DDE! DDE is the link between client apps and server apps. They ain't obselete. Thought .NET will eventually change that I suppose.
Oh, and DDE was released on windows 3.x, DDL (Dynamic Data Linking) was used in 2.x. I had a link copied from msdn.microsoft.com, but lost it (see first line).
Also found a page (through searching google of course, to the REXX.org page) stating that REXX (IBM's mainframe script language, and yes before both OS/2 and windows) supports DDL (the father of DDE, OLE, OCX, COM and COM+).
Are they reliable webpages?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dale
Anyways, what I was saying is COM/OLE/DDE are all still strongly used. |
Yes, but that doesn't make it not obsolete.
.NET doesn't use any of the above, and COM/OLE/DDE are deprecated in favor of .NET.
quote:
Oh, and DDE was released on windows 3.x, DDL (Dynamic Data Linking) was used in 2.x. I had a link copied from msdn.microsoft.com, but lost it (see first line). |
Same technology, different iteration.
quote:
Also found a page (through searching google of course, to the REXX.org page) stating that REXX (IBM's mainframe script language, and yes before both OS/2 and windows) supports DDL (the father of DDE, OLE, OCX, COM and COM+). |
What's funny is you just contradicted yourself...
You say "butbutbut, Win2.x didn't have DDE, it has DDL!"
then
"butbutbut, REXX had DDL, and therefore DDE, blahblah"
IBM and Microsoft were partners, it's called a cross-licensing agreement for a reason. IBM uses MS tech, MS uses IBM tech. Seeing how woefully primitive DDL was, which you admit was the "grandfather" to DDE, and how DDE appeared in a Microsoft product before an IBM one, and how DDE is the one still used today...I think it's more apt to give MS far far more credit to Windows than IBM. But hey, that's just me. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
You do know, of course, that one cannot remove IE from Windows XP. Recently, this caused a real problem for me when IE and some other program became corrupt and IE became nofunctional. My OS became non functional. I ended up having to wipe the disk clean and do a clean reinstall. I lost years of tax and quicken data in the process - all thanks to IE. |
Wow -- that was really stupid of you.
Did everyone notice how low Ned's arguments have begun sinking? He started off strong with bullshit that sounded almost reasonable, then used a link to a PDF file to help solidify his case, only to have it easily tear down everything we've been talking about for the last two pages.
And now? Now he's sunk to anecdotal rhetoric about why IE is evil, even though he demonstrates just how stupid he is with computers by admitting he reinstalled the entire OS to fix IE, and didn't even back up his data beforehand. And somehow, reinstalling an OS wiped his data? He must've reformatted, too. Genius.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Asher, my god, but you cannot read, can you. The DC Cir. reversed and remanded the tying issue to deternmine the issye of tying under the so-called "rule of reason" standard rather than under a stricter "per se" standard. They did not find that Microsoft had not attempted to monopolize the browser market. |
No, apparently I cannot read!
Because to me, this looks like the PDF of yours says:
quote:
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s conclusion that Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the market for browsers |
Which seems to fly in the face of your comment that:
quote:
They did not find that Microsoft had not attempted to monopolize the browser market. |
So who is more correct about what the Court ruled, the Court, or Ned? 
quote:
Regardless, the bundling was found to be illegal under the OS monopolization holding. |
Funny, the PDF you mentioned explicitly says otherwise...
You do understand that most of Jackson's rulings, including that one, were reversed, right? You are aware of that?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
Asher, the legal summary is about the DC Circuit opinion, not about the Jackson opinion. Further, the bundling of IE was found to be an "illegal" practice that supported Microsoft's illegal OS monopolization effort. The separate tying count was overturned because Jackson used the wrong legal standard. The DC Circuit did not decide the tying issue on appeal with the correct legal standard, but simply remanded to the lower court.
On remand, the US dropped the tying count in order to avoid a retrial on liability. They instead focused on the remedy and the settlement.
The bottom line remains that integration and bundling was found to be illegal. I am sure that Microsoft settled with AOL/Netscape and paid big bucks on the strength of this finding by the DC Circuit.
As to IE continuing to ship with Windows, as I said, the fact of its non removability was established at trial. Microsoft, though, has to permit companies like Dell to make it a "background" application. As well, there is a new program access feature in Windows that permits one to "disable" access to IE. (It doesn't really.)
The bottom line, really, is that Mircrosoft "cheated" to make IE the dominant browser. Whether IE could have become dominant without this boost by MS is something we will never know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
nice way of dealing with arguments, yavoon:
quote:
I still didnt say u could resopnd to me. hush. |
"LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
in any case, more power to microsoft with their bundling of the av software they bought in romania. (it's actually a decent package.) however, i honestly don't think that symantec and mcafee are in any serious danger: they make most of their money off of corporate sales, something which microsoft's offering will do very little to hurt.
Who am I going to trust? The industry standard, NAV Server, which can push invisible clients out to everyone in the network, continuously update both code and definitions automatically? Or the built-in AV solution which would require far more administration at the local level?
Let Microsoft do this. I have no problem with it, as long as it comes disabled by default, just like their firewall. Just because Windows has a firewall and virus software doesn't mean that it'll drive the biggies out. Symantec and McAfee are here to stay, both in their AV offerings and Firewall offerings, on the consumer and on the corporate level.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-08-2003 08:36
|