Microsoft vs The Free World

[Warrior]

Sure, they did a good job on Office and Visual Studio, but market share says nothing about technological superiority.  And surely, even you could agree that 9x was technologically inferior to every other OS of the time.

Sure Windows was technologically inferior at the time to the Unixes, however they presented the User with a unified solution to their desktop needs. That's why they won out the desktop war in the end.

Mark my words, I've seen it all too often, a few years from now they'll be toting something new.
How misinformed I am?  Look, I understand you have to go with the flow to make money with Microsoft technologies, but Microsoft technologies seem nothing more than a fad.  Take for example a language like C ... 30 years after the fact, and its still widely used.  I really doubt C# will be used 30 years from now, and I'd be surprised if something else didn't replace it 5 years from now.  Same goes with .NET.  They're fads.  How about the stinking cow pie VB?  MFC?

Both MFC and VB are still widely used. VB6 has been made legacy with the advent of VB.NET and MFC is actively ported to the managed C++.

I am sure there are more examples, but they come and go.  Its about the all newest and greatest technology Microsoft made.  In all fairness, if Microsoft is to continue making money on development tools, they'd have to keep inventing (and reinventing) new tools anyhow.

.NET and C# are veyr innovative languages. I can give you link to new features in C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5 if you'd like.

The problem is, and returning back to our original topic, based on these tidbits, I really don't think Microsoft could have written a full blown GUI back in the 80s by itself.  They've bought and/or imported some of the most complicated portions of all the above mentioned software.  It really doesn't give me the impression that they could have written a GUI.  I'd say even NT is probably largely more of a creation of IBM, than it is a Microsoft creation.
Haha, yeah I'm not a fan of GPL.

Well this is purely speculation by you, I think they wrote their own code (albiet maybe taking a few implementation ideas from POSIX/Unix and the like). Microsoft may be evil and have evil business practices, but their products are far from innovative.

They have the best developer platform and tools on the market right now. Let's not mention productivity suites like Office 12 and the Expression suite.

[MyndFyre]

Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Joe, if Apple's so great, why don't you use it?

[Newby]

that Apple gave software which Microsoft built their entire text rendering system off of, in exchange for software that Apple never used. Who made more use of someone elses software?
Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

[iago]

that Apple gave software which Microsoft built their entire text rendering system off of, in exchange for software that Apple never used. Who made more use of someone elses software?
Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

Agreed, 100%. In the modern world, it's not about having the best product, it's about marketing it the best. That goes for software and everything else.

[Joe]

Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Joe, if Apple's so great, why don't you use it?

Because we're not in 1984 anymore. I never once said I support Apple more than Microsoft. I only stated points as a Devil's Advocate against Warrior.

As far as software availability, and debatably, ease of use, yes, Microsoft does win in 2007. However, these ideas were created by Apple in the 80's, when they were better than Microsoft.

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

I agree entirely, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple first created these technologies, and therefore if they were legal ownership of them (which this topic is about, Microsoft owning the technologies they took from Apple), Apple would own them.

Also, see my reply to MyndFyre.

[Warrior]

As far as software availability, and debatably, ease of use, yes, Microsoft does win in 2007. However, these ideas were created by Apple in the 80's, when they were better than Microsoft.

READ what I said, Microsoft played a roll in developing this stuff when they worked with Apple (Which predates Windows 1.0). Read the goddamn facts, you're (once again) looking like a moron.

You know nothing about this topic, get lost.

[nslay]

Sure, they did a good job on Office and Visual Studio, but market share says nothing about technological superiority.  And surely, even you could agree that 9x was technologically inferior to every other OS of the time.

Sure Windows was technologically inferior at the time to the Unixes, however they presented the User with a unified solution to their desktop needs. That's why they won out the desktop war in the end.

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

Mark my words, I've seen it all too often, a few years from now they'll be toting something new.
How misinformed I am?  Look, I understand you have to go with the flow to make money with Microsoft technologies, but Microsoft technologies seem nothing more than a fad.  Take for example a language like C ... 30 years after the fact, and its still widely used.  I really doubt C# will be used 30 years from now, and I'd be surprised if something else didn't replace it 5 years from now.  Same goes with .NET.  They're fads.  How about the stinking cow pie VB?  MFC?

Both MFC and VB are still widely used. VB6 has been made legacy with the advent of VB.NET and MFC is actively ported to the managed C++.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

I am sure there are more examples, but they come and go.  Its about the all newest and greatest technology Microsoft made.  In all fairness, if Microsoft is to continue making money on development tools, they'd have to keep inventing (and reinventing) new tools anyhow.

.NET and C# are veyr innovative languages. I can give you link to new features in C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5 if you'd like.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

The problem is, and returning back to our original topic, based on these tidbits, I really don't think Microsoft could have written a full blown GUI back in the 80s by itself.  They've bought and/or imported some of the most complicated portions of all the above mentioned software.  It really doesn't give me the impression that they could have written a GUI.  I'd say even NT is probably largely more of a creation of IBM, than it is a Microsoft creation.
Haha, yeah I'm not a fan of GPL.

Well this is purely speculation by you, I think they wrote their own code (albiet maybe taking a few implementation ideas from POSIX/Unix and the like). Microsoft may be evil and have evil business practices, but their products are far from innovative.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow.  There must be some reason why Harvard researched, Pirates of Silicon Valley, speculated that they "stole" code from Apple.

They have the best developer platform and tools on the market right now. Let's not mention productivity suites like Office 12 and the Expression suite.

Sure, ok.

[Warrior]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

There may not be demand, because they've been replaced by newer and more efficient technologies. They are still maintained (visible in the Managed MFC port, and VB.NET for those who find it too hard to transition). I see where they are coming from in a sense, they need to innovate and sometimes that means sacraficing backwards compat.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

Well Windows originally was just a DOS Window Manager, it didnt' become a full blown OS until late in the game. I'd argue that even Win9x was just a 32Bit hack ontop of DOS. Regardless, it still had some innovatons like PnP and innovations in the mere presentability of itself. Despite being lacking in the department of strictly technological niceties it was easy to use and established itself as the defacto system on Operating Systems.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow. 

It's not hard to develop a Window Manager ontop of DOS. It's essentially why Win1.0 was not such a spectacular success they may of wished.

I think it's credible that they could of done it, it may not of been as fancy as what Apple offered but it still did what it was designed to do. Win95 was probably when they broke more away from DOS and more torwards a standalone environment (which probably began with the first uses of the NT Kernel on the desktop)

 

Sure, ok.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

[MyndFyre]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

The Windows product line through Win95 had cooperative multitasking, which means that a process had to surrender its thread to the kernel; Windows 3.0 introduced preemptive multitasking to this Windows product line via 386 Enhanced mode (NT had it starting at 3.1, which was the first real version, probably so-named because of the Windows 3.1 release and its similarities in design).

Cooperative multitasking means that a process owns a processor until it surrenders it by calling a system service function.  Preemptive multitasking means that the OS assigns time slices (in the Windows world, the process scheduler refers to these as "quanta"), and the kernel/process scheduler "preempts" processes by instructing the system timer to call an ISR at specified intervals.  Preemptive multitasking introduces possible synchronization issues because time slices are typically assigned on a per-thread basis.  That's why sometimes spinlocks are preferable synchronization primitives to something like an OS event or wait handle - a spinlock keeps the processor until the time slice is up, rather than yielding the rest of the time slice to the processor by using something like a wait handle.

This is likely one of the reasons that Win32 threading like we know it didn't really come into play until Windows 95 since Windows 3.0 still supported real (8086) and standard (80286) mode, and couldn't truly preempt virtual 8086 applications except in 386-enhanced mode.

[nslay]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

There may not be demand, because they've been replaced by newer and more efficient technologies. They are still maintained (visible in the Managed MFC port, and VB.NET for those who find it too hard to transition). I see where they are coming from in a sense, they need to innovate and sometimes that means sacraficing backwards compat.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

Well Windows originally was just a DOS Window Manager, it didnt' become a full blown OS until late in the game. I'd argue that even Win9x was just a 32Bit hack ontop of DOS. Regardless, it still had some innovatons like PnP and innovations in the mere presentability of itself. Despite being lacking in the department of strictly technological niceties it was easy to use and established itself as the defacto system on Operating Systems.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow.

It's not hard to develop a Window Manager ontop of DOS. It's essentially why Win1.0 was not such a spectacular success they may of wished.

It's not like we're talking about a curses interface with mouse support, DOS Shell already had that, but an actual full blown GUI.

I think it's credible that they could of done it, it may not of been as fancy as what Apple offered but it still did what it was designed to do. Win95 was probably when they broke more away from DOS and more torwards a standalone environment (which probably began with the first uses of the NT Kernel on the desktop)

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seems you are not aware Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME were all DOS hacks.  NT was a joint innovation between IBM and Microsoft, originally to be OS/2 but redubbed as NT by Microsoft who later left IBM holding the bag on OS/2.  NT only become widely used on home desktop when XP was released.  I'd sooner believe IBM did most of that work, than Microsoft purely because Microsoft wasn't able to develop a full blown OS before (neither did it probably have the resources to write a full blown OS).  Microsoft additionally brought ex-DEC VMS developers on board to work on NT, people who really knew OS theory and design.  VMS is one of the most impressive works I have ever seen, DEC pioneered a lot of OS design and research. 

Sure, ok.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

Not sarcasm at all.

[nslay]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

The Windows product line through Win95 had cooperative multitasking, which means that a process had to surrender its thread to the kernel; Windows 3.0 introduced preemptive multitasking to this Windows product line via 386 Enhanced mode (NT had it starting at 3.1, which was the first real version, probably so-named because of the Windows 3.1 release and its similarities in design).

Cooperative multitasking means that a process owns a processor until it surrenders it by calling a system service function.  Preemptive multitasking means that the OS assigns time slices (in the Windows world, the process scheduler refers to these as "quanta"), and the kernel/process scheduler "preempts" processes by instructing the system timer to call an ISR at specified intervals.  Preemptive multitasking introduces possible synchronization issues because time slices are typically assigned on a per-thread basis.  That's why sometimes spinlocks are preferable synchronization primitives to something like an OS event or wait handle - a spinlock keeps the processor until the time slice is up, rather than yielding the rest of the time slice to the processor by using something like a wait handle.

This is likely one of the reasons that Win32 threading like we know it didn't really come into play until Windows 95 since Windows 3.0 still supported real (8086) and standard (80286) mode, and couldn't truly preempt virtual 8086 applications except in 386-enhanced mode.

Ah I hadn't realized DOS based Windows had cooperative multitasking too.

[Warrior]

It's not like we're talking about a curses interface with mouse support, DOS Shell already had that, but an actual full blown GUI.

Yep, you implement a Window Manager, clipping, controls, etc. It doesn't have to be fancy (this wasy '87ish IIRC) but it could be done with the technology they had available and is by no means rocket science. Maybe it wasn't pretty, but I haven no doubt they could of pulled it off.

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seems you are not aware Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME were all DOS hacks.  NT was a joint innovation between IBM and Microsoft, originally to be OS/2 but redubbed as NT by Microsoft who later left IBM holding the bag on OS/2.  NT only become widely used on home desktop when XP was released.  I'd sooner believe IBM did most of that work, than Microsoft purely because Microsoft wasn't able to develop a full blown OS before (neither did it probably have the resources to write a full blown OS).  Microsoft additionally brought ex-DEC VMS developers on board to work on NT, people who really knew OS theory and design.  VMS is one of the most impressive works I have ever seen, DEC pioneered a lot of OS design and research. 

I'm fully aware of that, however perhaps Microsoft did not see the need for NT until they saw the limitations brought forth by 9x. Why is it so hard for you to believe they simply hired some specialists in the OS department who were a part of the staff before the venture? Even though 9x(Especially 98) and ME were DOS Hacks they implement a lot of modern features of the x86 architecture. That is no simple feat. I think you're just writing the fact that they use DOS as the underlying system off as a reason why they couldn't possibly have engineered an operating system.
 

[MyndFyre]

One of the reasons Microsoft brought DEC guys on board was because NT was cross-platform (ran on PPC, MIPS Alpha, and x86, among others). 

Saying that IBM did most of the work because Microsoft had never written a full OS before is like saying that Novell wrote most of Linux because Linus had never written an OS before....  It's grossly ignorant.

[nslay]

One of the reasons Microsoft brought DEC guys on board was because NT was cross-platform (ran on PPC, MIPS Alpha, and x86, among others). 

Saying that IBM did most of the work because Microsoft had never written a full OS before is like saying that Novell wrote most of Linux because Linus had never written an OS before....  It's grossly ignorant.

Keeping in mind that IBM was #1 and the largest computer corporation in the world at the time, yes, very ignorant indeed. IBM not only had the resources to build an OS, but the actual staffing.  Microsoft may be big now, but they weren't so big back in '88.  IBM had a crack team of 300 working on OS/2.  So yeah, I believe IBM did more work on OS/2 than Microsoft!

[Warrior]

Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Microsoft broke up with IBM before OS/2 became anything important anyhow. It was initially textbased and got a WM in 1988, after Win2.0 was out.

Considering OS/2 took two years and change to release in 1985, it's perfectly plausible that Microsoft could of played a (significant) roll in the development of OS/2.