rec.autos.simulators

DirectX5

Salim Qadr

DirectX5

by Salim Qadr » Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00:00




> >Of course you decided to miss the point.  I am not advocating all
> >operating systems have equal market share.  I am only saying that we
> >want other operating systems around even if we don't personally want to
> >use them.  MS would be left high and dry without any new ideas if
> >everything but Windows suddenly disappeared.  That would be beside the
> >point since MS would no longer feel the need to update Windows on a
> >regular basis.

No they would be high and dry because they could'nt copy from anyone. :-)

HW and SW are very different entities.  USR and Rocwell will
eventually still compete with similar products based on a common
standard.  No software company can make their own version of windows
and sell it because it is fully proprietary.  We only have one source
for our products.  This is actually quite scary.

<snip>

Good point, but you ignore the fact that you could have different OS's
that work with standards.  Therefore, apps can be ported very easily
to different platform (eg. w/ different unices).

What the hell don't you understand?  TCP/IP works anywhere.  DOS and
Win95 apps do not. Emulation is not in useable yet if ever. Also,
TCP/IP has competing protocols that have been rejected mostly, or we
might have ATM/IP in the future.  So there.  At least we have more
than one source for products.  Competition is good.  It should be
standards based in the computer industry IMHO.

yikes.  What's wrong with commodity apps and commodity uP's then?
What about one video card manufacturer and one modem manufacturer.

--

I can barely form my own opinions let alone Nortel's.
Salim

Carl Muell

DirectX5

by Carl Muell » Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:00:00



>>[...]
>>Nobody says that different OS's have to be incompatible.  OS/2 was
>>able to run Windows 3.1 programs.  If IBM had kept working on
>>compatibility, their OS might still be viable.

>The history of operating systems has shown that enforcing compatibility is
>excruciatingly difficult-- look at Unix and Java. De facto standards like
>Netscape and Win32 are more compelling than loose guidelines. Perfect
>compatibility is the holy grail of computing. Certainly worth aspiring to
>but incredibly frustrating in actual use.

Unix was a de facto standard.  There was no central organization stating
what Unix interfaces should look like.  There were only guidelines handed
down from generation to generation (BSD, SysV).

Java is a whole 'nother story.  Sun was aspiring to create a platform-
independent computing model.  However, Microsoft realized that that would
be bad for their business, and began to "corrupt" Java by creating many
PC-specific APIs for it.  It's worked.

HTML is another standard that's been corrupted by the greedy influence
of big business.  Both Netscape and Microsoft have rapidly created new
HTML tags that would initially only work with their own browsers.  Their
attempt was to get sites to use these tags, and thus force the public to
use their browser in order to view those sites.

You don't look very hard.  Proprietary standards often DON'T move
us forward.  Understand?  Probably not.

Try to listen again:  Microsoft ONLY cares about making money.
There's nothing noble about them.  If they could get away with
continuing to feed the public MS-DOS 1.0, they would.  It's
other companies' competition that drives Microsoft forward.
Microsoft wants to kill the competition.  What's wrong with this
picture?

Microsoft certainly doesn't want the best Java.  What they want
is everyone to run Java only under Windows.  They'll do whatever
it takes to further that end.


Jim Sokolof

DirectX5

by Jim Sokolof » Thu, 07 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> > try to do things as much as possible to favor it. MS has to try to grow to
> > make stockbrokers happy. All they're trying to do is make as much
> Stockbrokers couldn't give a damn. MS is a privately owned company, why
> do you think Gates is the US's richest man?

Bzzt. Thanks for playing the game...

MS is publicly traded on NASDAQ, under the symbol MSFT. Has been since,
what, 1981?

       ___________________________Price_____________________________
Vol        %       ___EPS___
 Sym   last  change    bid-ask     close   low    high   52low  52hi
1000s P/E  Yld Beta est. rep.

 MSFT 143.75  +0.44 143.69-143.75 143.31 142.25 144.00  60.25 150.75
3133  54  0.0 1.05 3.17 2.63
       MICROSOFT CORP            Industry #49    COM

---Jim

M Garc

DirectX5

by M Garc » Thu, 07 Aug 1997 04:00:00

> On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:27:29 +0100, "Scott Cummings"

> >That explains why Windows NT4.0 is so lousy ?
> >And MS-Visual Basic 4 must have been just as bad ?

> >Come to think off it my Toyota RAV4 must be even worse (I better sell
> >it and get
> >a 5 Series BMW, just is case, you never know what lady luck could do

Let's not forget the illustrious and appropriately
maligned MS-DOS 4.0. hahahahahaha
--
==============
M Garcia


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.