- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Microsoft's secrets ... Revealed!

Posted by: Dr. Cruel on October 23, 1999 at 02:21:39:

In Reply to: Viva la revoluÁion! posted by Farinata on October 20, 1999 at 18:50:11:

Here we go again ...

:Doc, your knowledge of computers is obviously somewhat limited. Apples and PCs are different bits of hardware; you cannot run MacOS on a PC, just as you cannot run Windows or MS-DOS on a Mac. PCs got a huge boost because IBM adopted MS-DOS as the operating system of choice on the original PC. MS-DOS was itself originally a cut-down and dumbed-down version of Unix.

1) You can run the old Apple OS on a PC, but it requires special hardware (it was an old Vulcan we used, with a 2MB hard drive) or emulation software (which defeats the point of using it in the first place).
2) (And I am regularly frustrated by this) People do not have the time to learn the endless stream of instructions and information produced by computer technicians. I finally did so because of a compelling reason - to wit, the increased number of fun games available for DOS, and later, WIN 95. Like most leftists, however, a potential hint at a change in marketing tactics is used for a cheap shot. And thus, LINUX remains the OS of the tinkerers and code-writers (no doubt, some sort of capitalist conspiracy).

If you want to know why people turn to things like WIN 9x and AOL, you need look no further than the mirror. Like Col. Klink was to Col. Hogan, people like yourself are Bill Gatesí best allies.

: Unix is widely recognised as being the best and most reliable operating system the world has ever seen (regardless of your own personal experience, Doc.)

If that were so, you would not need to Ďsellí it. Whether it is or not (knowing a bit about it, I find it useful for manipulating data, but lousy for running games - especially ones that require a WIN 9x OS), it is not Ďwidely recognizedí as such outside of the community of system administrators.

: Windows '95 is possibly the worst single OS the world has ever seen; it has all the limitations of MS-DOS (on which it is based) as well as having a vast and unwieldy GUI sitting on top of it. Think of it as an unreliable lawnmower engine sitting inside the bonnet of a two ton truck.

An unreliable lawnmower engine sitting inside the bonnet of a two ton truck would not work. WIN 95 does, and does well enough to run my games software. It is easy to support (I know; I do it). If you cannot, perhaps youíre not as smart as you think you are.

: However, Microsoft's prime skill, like McDonald's, is marketing; intensive marketing - aimed not at the engineers who have to maintain the PCs but at their managers and their accountants, who don't have enough technical information to know any better.

Exactly my point. What do you intend to do about it, besides whine and berate?

: Doc; I've got a bloody degree in Space Science. Read the UN's GEO-2000 report and give me facts to disprove it; it's the largest and most complete study ever carried out and it says that we're up shit creek, ecologically speaking. Give up-to-date counterevidence, or admit that you don't exactly have a qualified opinion here. I have a qualified opinion; and it agrees with the UN and the observed evidence.

Those in your field also predicted an ice age, due to pollution. There were also apocalyptic predictions of a population explosion and a collapse of the world oil markets that have both failed to materialize.

Merely because astrologers have credentials in future prediction does not mean I value their prognostications.

: See above; the Greenhouse Effect is getting more and more definite as time goes past. How many tropical diseases have to hit the US; and how many more hurricanes hit North Carolina, before you admit that the climate is changing and the mean surface temperature is going up?

Hurricanes have hit the East Coast before (the last big one was in 1938, in my region). Malaria? The rise of it in the U.S. has curiously followed the success of wetland legislation.

Please. Do not attempt to impress me with the wonders of pseudo-science. It didnít work for the Catholics; why ought it to work for you?

: Doc, you still seem to be plodding along in incomprehension, despite my telling you three times now. Linux is not UNIX

LINUX->UNIX as WIN 9x->DOS. You arenít listening (typical).

Again, I repeat this. Make it worth my while, or no sale. Bill Gates heard us, and is rich. You apparently havenít, and petulantly shout from the mountaintop, loudly, of the various and sundry reasons why your precious OS isnít successful.

"Must I beat upon their ears, for them to hear?" - Thus Spake Zarathustra

"Doc" Cruel

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup