Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microsoft taps Canon to bring Vista into color

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:58:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PanHandler wrote:
> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&s...

I'm not sure that's a good move.

They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE
company, in my opinion.

In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of
software.
Maybe they'll surprise me, but it took them YEARS to finally come up with an
image browser that was better than a total clunker. Great cameras that I'm
glad I use, but my faith in their software needs boosting.

But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard... I'm sure many
here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user) a "sheep" or "shill"
etc.

(Yawn)

:) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 3:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> PanHandler wrote:
>
>>http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&s...
>
>
> I'm not sure that's a good move.
>
> They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE
> company, in my opinion.
>
> In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of
> software.
> Maybe they'll surprise me, but it took them YEARS to finally come up with an
> image browser that was better than a total clunker. Great cameras that I'm
> glad I use, but my faith in their software needs boosting.
>
> But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard... I'm sure many
> here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user) a "sheep" or "shill"
> etc.
>
> (Yawn)
>
> :) 


The article is not too specific, but I would think it meant hardware
support so Canon makes good sense as they make both cameras and
printers. ICC works okay but do need a bit of knowhow. The major problem
I have and many people are the video card/monitor not calibrated, not
even remotely close.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:17:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:58:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> who has gone into hiding wrote:

> But never mind my harsh criticism of Canon in this regard...
> I'm sure many here will STILL call me (along with ANY Canon user)
> a "sheep" or "shill"
> etc.

A very shilly sheep.


> (Yawn)

Baah
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 7:56:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:C5OVe.14074$sx2.13660@fed1read02...
> PanHandler wrote:
>> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&s...
>
> I'm not sure that's a good move.
>
> They should have talked to Adobe, or perhaps another graphics SOFTWARE
> company, in my opinion.
>
> In my experience, Canon isn't all too great at anything in the realm of
> software.


This is actually an excellent strategic move by both companies. In most
cases the current technologies/software's are only used as a stop gap while
the two companies create an entirely new suite of software's/firmware's for
the future. In MS's case they almost always partner with companies who can
help them get their foot in the door and then just take over eventually
tossing out the partners software for MS's in house software. This exact
strategy was done with Wang/Kodak in the early 90s with Tiff viewer and
scanner driver technology which eventually evolved into MSs WIA technology.
Fact is MS was already working on WIA but it was behind schedule and MS saw
the need to get into the paper imaging field. The stop gap was Wang/Kodak.
Got MS a viewer and all us in the paper imaging industry looking at what MS
as going to do and providing feed back as MS evolved their wares.

What canon provides that Adobe doesn't is a huge all inclusive imaging
market. I'll bet this partnership goes beyond digi cams to printers,
copiers, scanners, and any other digital imaging equipment Canon has, after
all I don't think anyone would argue that when added together Canon holds
the market share in these markets. Adobe doesn't even come close and what
MS wants is the user base not the best technology. After they get the user
base they'll work to provide adequate technology to suit everyone. Once
that's done other manufacture can choose to use it or not, at that point MS
could care less. Again just like WIA.

What canon gets is the chance to be come the defacto standard as their
technologies and devices become internalized in future versions of Windows.
Again Canon gains a huge marked share of all us MS windows users and
specifically because they are not good at writing software, they get a
partner who will eventually write all the software that is needed and Canon
can do what it does best, build hardware.

What needs to occur now is for Apple to complete the Intel port of OSX and
then partner with Adobe and Minolta or Fuji and come up with a competitive
technology for digital imaging. This way we're not all locked into one
technology and the two of them have an incentive to make adequate technology
outstanding.

JMHO.
--

Rob
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:30:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:28:25 -0500
In message <McCVe.608$7E5.188@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
"PanHandler" <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:

> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&s...

This only means one thing: Microsoft will ruin any hope of
solidifying a standard by creating an API that will not function to
specification and will always change with every windows update.

Jeff
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"½ Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:fnihi19shm728febcitdu8kpim0u20e1k4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:28:25 -0500
> In message <McCVe.608$7E5.188@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
> "PanHandler" <panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5861541.html?part=msn&s...
>
> This only means one thing: Microsoft will ruin any hope of
> solidifying a standard by creating an API that will not function to
> specification and will always change with every windows update.
>
>


However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:30:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <eKudnRCLYMORUrXeRVn-qA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

> However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.

Not on my Macintosh...
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:30:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:140920051908156499%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <eKudnRCLYMORUrXeRVn-qA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However everyone will use it so it will become the standard.
>
> Not on my Macintosh...

True True. But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel No telling what will
happen then.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:30:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <YLCdncgATO0RQrXeRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

> True True. But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel No telling what will
> happen then.

It's just another CPU. The garbage of the platform is Windows, not the
chip it runs on (well, unless it's AMD).

I was reading this morning that the next version of OS X for Intel that
will be soon released to developers gets the performance up to where
it's at on the Mac today.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:31:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:29:27 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <YLCdncgATO0RQrXeRVn-2A@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> True True. But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel No telling what will
>> happen then.
>
> It's just another CPU. The garbage of the platform is Windows, not the
> chip it runs on (well, unless it's AMD).
>
> I was reading this morning that the next version of OS X for Intel that
> will be soon released to developers gets the performance up to where
> it's at on the Mac today.
I have used a couple of AMD chips and then run well. I don't use windows
as I use Mandriva (2006 0.4) which is more reliable.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:59:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:

>True True. But wait until OSX is ported over to Intel No telling what will
>happen then.

From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
a PC. The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard. So Windows
probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X
probably won't run on a PC. (And Linux will eventually run on both)

Dave
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:59:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dgdn05$mt7$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
<davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

> From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
> a PC. The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
> distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard. So Windows
> probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X
> probably won't run on a PC. (And Linux will eventually run on both)

All the facts aren't out yet, but it's expected that a Mactel will be
able to run Windows out-of-the-box, but a regular PC won't be able to
run OS X.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:40:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:160920050543436598%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <dgdn05$mt7$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
> <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>> From what I've read so far, the Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac, not
>> a PC. The motherboard and chipsets and packaging are likely to remain
>> distinctive to Apple, and incompatible with the PC standard. So Windows
>> probably won't run on an Intel-based Mac (except via emulation), and OS X
>> probably won't run on a PC. (And Linux will eventually run on both)
>
> All the facts aren't out yet, but it's expected that a Mactel will be
> able to run Windows out-of-the-box, but a regular PC won't be able to
> run OS X.

If this turns out to be true, Apple will continue to remain a distant 2nd to
MS and Ol' Steve Jobs will continue to waist opportunities to provide real
competition in the market place.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 1:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F7udnQIRhaquVrfeRVn-rg@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If this turns out to be true, Apple will continue to remain a distant 2nd to
> MS and Ol' Steve Jobs will continue to waist opportunities to provide real
> competition in the market place.

And allowing OS X to run on garden variety PCs would kill Apple
hardware sales.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:46:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
> and stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he
> didn't do this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place but
> it's just not there because no one has gone after the current install
> base.


If they did that they would not be Apple. IBM having no faith in the idea of
personal computers was going for a few quick bucks and built the first PC
with mostly off the shelf parts. Getting all the parts working together is a
chore and it's only gotten worse. Apple has kept control over all this and
their computers tend to have fewer problems. But, the downside to this is
that licensing raises the price of Macs, and forget about upgrades...you
just toss the old computer and replace everything...including expensive
software. With PCs we just upgrade the parts that are outdated...and go
through all we have to deal with to get them to work together. It usually
works, or course...but I know I have some parts sitting around that I could
never get to work.

If Jobs were to let go of control then the Mac would be more like a PC with
all the problems...and people who don't know computers will start making the
same complaints they have about PCs.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:46:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QF3Xe.4928$nV1.1384@trnddc06...
>> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
>> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
>> and stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he
>> didn't do this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place
>> but it's just not there because no one has gone after the current install
>> base.
>
>
> If they did that they would not be Apple. IBM having no faith in the idea
> of personal computers was going for a few quick bucks and built the first
> PC with mostly off the shelf parts. Getting all the parts working together
> is a chore and it's only gotten worse. Apple has kept control over all
> this and their computers tend to have fewer problems. But, the downside to
> this is that licensing raises the price of Macs, and forget about
> upgrades...you just toss the old computer and replace
> everything...including expensive software. With PCs we just upgrade the
> parts that are outdated...and go through all we have to deal with to get
> them to work together. It usually works, or course...but I know I have
> some parts sitting around that I could never get to work.
>
> If Jobs were to let go of control then the Mac would be more like a PC
> with all the problems...and people who don't know computers will start
> making the same complaints they have about PCs.

If this were several years ago I'd agree completely but I rarely get support
calls regarding Hardware related problems anymore. 99% of the support
issues I deal with are software related, mostly OS related. PC hardware has
matured past the old issues of IRQ conflicts, driver availability,
installation complexity etc.

Besides if Jobs wants to continue to provide "Pure" MACs more power to him.
Those uses who don't want to risk hardware related problems can pay the
premium for Genuine MAC equipment. My point is that if Job's, Apple, and
MAC users really want to see what they call a superior platform be a real
player in the market they should insure that OSX and all the software will
run on current Intel hardware or ALL future Intel hardware. I'm not even
suggesting legacy (1-2 year old hardware.) If they choose to go down the
proprietary but Intel route they will have achieved nothing in the market
place other then replacing their chip manufacture. The last thing we need
in the market is a Wintel and an Apptel. We need Intel (and preferably
other chip manufactures) and then the choice of OSX or Windows.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:09:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <-pidncL_IuuaILHeRVn-jA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The iPod doesn't even equate. It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer good
> compared to corporate investment in computer technology. Their are
> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse and
> stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he didn't do
> this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place but it's just
> not there because no one has gone after the current install base.

Once the Mactel switch is complete, what would be the motivation to buy
an Apple-branded computer if you can run OS X on an e-Machine?
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:52:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:180920050909590668%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <-pidncL_IuuaILHeRVn-jA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The iPod doesn't even equate. It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer
>> good
>> compared to corporate investment in computer technology. Their are
>> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
>> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
>> and
>> stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he didn't
>> do
>> this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place but it's
>> just
>> not there because no one has gone after the current install base.
>
> Once the Mactel switch is complete, what would be the motivation to buy
> an Apple-branded computer if you can run OS X on an e-Machine?

The same thing that motivates me to NOT buy an e-Machine to begin with,
quality hardware. On should be able to assume that the best possible
hardware to run OSX would be a box that comes from Apple and if I wanted the
best I'd buy a genuine MAC. Besides this assumes that the real money is in
hardware sales. Its not. It's in OS/Software sales. The hardware profit
margin is nil compared to software.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:17:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <WbWdna5UceZFJbDeRVn-vA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition in the
> market which would greatly benefit the consumer.

Simpler fact: OSX running on garden-variety PCs would kill Apple
hardware sales.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:17:26 -0700, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

>> Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition
>> in the market which would greatly benefit the consumer.
>
> Simpler fact: OSX running on garden-variety PCs would kill Apple
> hardware sales.

Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
their public release of the ROM BIOS source code. Apple doesn't
have to do the equivalent. They could also make it impossible or
extremely difficult to run if they know the serial numbers of all of
the Intel CPUs they've supplied in genuine Apple computers.
Microsoft does something like this by allowing XP to only work for a
limited time unless the user registers it, and the way this takes
place (usually while online) makes it very easy and very likely that
the CPU serial number is transferred to Microsoft in the process.
Bin Laden probably doesn't create his proclamations on a laptop
running XP. Maybe he should. :) 
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <05jri15ss3lr4adqjsl0bud614c65vhuvd@4ax.com>, ASAAR
<caught@22.com> wrote:

> Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
> their public release of the ROM BIOS source code. Apple doesn't
> have to do the equivalent. They could also make it impossible or
> extremely difficult to run if they know the serial numbers of all of
> the Intel CPUs they've supplied in genuine Apple computers.
> Microsoft does something like this by allowing XP to only work for a
> limited time unless the user registers it, and the way this takes
> place (usually while online) makes it very easy and very likely that
> the CPU serial number is transferred to Microsoft in the process.
> Bin Laden probably doesn't create his proclamations on a laptop
> running XP. Maybe he should. :) 

Well, the plan is to have OS X only run on Intel machines that have a
special chip/circuit. You don't have the chip, you don't run OS X.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:32:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:33:35 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <05jri15ss3lr4adqjsl0bud614c65vhuvd@4ax.com>, ASAAR
><caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
>> their public release of the ROM BIOS source code. Apple doesn't
>> have to do the equivalent. They could also make it impossible or
>> extremely difficult to run if they know the serial numbers of all of
>> the Intel CPUs they've supplied in genuine Apple computers.
>> Microsoft does something like this by allowing XP to only work for a
>> limited time unless the user registers it, and the way this takes
>> place (usually while online) makes it very easy and very likely that
>> the CPU serial number is transferred to Microsoft in the process.
>> Bin Laden probably doesn't create his proclamations on a laptop
>> running XP. Maybe he should. :) 
>
>Well, the plan is to have OS X only run on Intel machines that have a
>special chip/circuit. You don't have the chip, you don't run OS X.

Yes, the Apple-supplied boxes for developers have a TPM, or Trusted
Platform Module in them. Without the TPM, OS X won't run.


--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:13:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:180920051317260088%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <WbWdna5UceZFJbDeRVn-vA@giganews.com>, Robert R Kircher, Jr.
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition in the
>> market which would greatly benefit the consumer.
>
> Simpler fact: OSX running on garden-variety PCs would kill Apple
> hardware sales.

Which would most likely be the best thing to ever happen to Apple. Again
there is more money in software sales then there is in hardware.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:38:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>The iPod doesn't even equate. It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer
>>>good
>>>compared to corporate investment in computer technology. Their are
>>>millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
>>>could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
>>>and
>>>stop being a control freak.
>>
>> Lessee, with MacOS runnning on Intel chips, a Mac will run MacOS, Unix,
>> Linux, and Windows. A PC box will run Linux and Windows.
>>
>> Sounds like a strong selling point for Macs.
>>
>> If MacOS runs on every PC then Apple's support costs go way up and
>> their hardware sales plummet.
>>
>>> I'm an MS user
>>
>> Of course you are. That's why you want Apple to screw itself for your
>> benefit.
>>
>>> and I'm very sorry he didn't do
>>>this years ago.
>>
>> If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.
>>
>>> I want REAL competition in the market place
>>
>> Which is why you support a monopoly?
>
>Ray, similar to you iPod assertion, you're so far off base I don't even know
>how to respond.

You don't know how to respond because you cannot.

> Lets just say that every one of you assertions are
>completely wrong and obviously come from your anti MS / pro MAC bias.

No, I'm right and you're wrong.

So there.

>Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition in the
>market which would greatly benefit the consumer.

LOL! Which is why Microsoft is a monopoly and Gates has gotten to be the
richest person in the world by "benefitting" the consumer.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:44:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <reply@tueue.com.invalid> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:

>>> Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition
>>> in the market which would greatly benefit the consumer.
>>
>> Simpler fact: OSX running on garden-variety PCs would kill Apple
>> hardware sales.
>
> Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
>their public release of the ROM BIOS source code.

And how has IBM done in the PC business?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:44:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:44:49 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:

>> Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
>>their public release of the ROM BIOS source code.
>
> And how has IBM done in the PC business?

They were fantastically successful until brain rot (and new
leaders) had their way. If the government's anti-trust pussycats
awakened from their naps, Windows might not have throttled OS/2, a
joint MS/IBM venture of a superior OS that MS killed, with visions
of dollar signs in their eyes. Had that not happened, IBM "coulda
been a contenduh".
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:00:12 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:44:49 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> Not necessarily. IBM allowed clones to be easily designed by
>>>their public release of the ROM BIOS source code.
>>
>> And how has IBM done in the PC business?
>
> They were fantastically successful until brain rot (and new
>leaders) had their way. If the government's anti-trust pussycats
>awakened from their naps, Windows might not have throttled OS/2, a
>joint MS/IBM venture of a superior OS that MS killed, with visions
>of dollar signs in their eyes. Had that not happened, IBM "coulda
>been a contenduh".
>
As I recall it, MS didn't kill OS/2, they simply stopped development
on it, and left it to IBM, which couldn't compete with Window's
development.
Although, that could be seen as killing it, I suppose.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qttri1hu1sjqd4kbleif5uhmvmcfasm23h@4ax.com>, ASAAR
<caught@22.com> wrote:

> There's much that you don't know, grasshopper, and it evidently
> extends beyond photography.

I've yet to see any signs of intelligence from your end.

I've used all the major PC operating systems since the beginning - DOS,
all versions of Windows, all versions of OS/2, GEOS, Be, GEM...you name
it. OS/2 had horrible graphics and the mouse buttons were backwards.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:44:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:26:48 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> They were fantastically successful until brain rot (and new
>> leaders) had their way. If the government's anti-trust pussycats
>> awakened from their naps, Windows might not have throttled OS/2, a
>> joint MS/IBM venture of a superior OS that MS killed, with visions
>> of dollar signs in their eyes. Had that not happened, IBM "coulda
>> been a contenduh".
>>
> As I recall it, MS didn't kill OS/2, they simply stopped development
> on it, and left it to IBM, which couldn't compete with Window's
> development.
> Although, that could be seen as killing it, I suppose.

It was that and more. They went ahead full speed with Windows
development, all the while assuring their partner IBM, that Windows
was just a temporary stopgap and OS/2 was the preferred future OS. I
think that within a year or so MS officially abandoned OS/2. IBM
continued to improve it, but Microsoft modified new releases of
their own Office apps. that put up dire warning messages about
incompatibility and would refuse to install. The reality was that
the apps. had no problems running under OS/2, but the install
program was designed to sniff out the OS and take appropriate
evasive action if the enemy was sighted, er, smelled. And don't
forget that at the time, these 16-bit MS apps. were running under
100% pure Microsoft Windows code, which itself was wrapped within
OS/2. One of the versions of OS/2 had the user buy and use
Microsoft's Windows as part of the install procedure.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:46:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>> Robert R Kircher, Jr.

>>> Simple fact; OSX support of Wintel would provide true competition in the
>>> market which would greatly benefit the consumer.
>>
>> Simpler fact: OSX running on garden-variety PCs would kill Apple
>> hardware sales.
>
>Which would most likely be the best thing to ever happen to Apple.

Good thing you're not in charge of Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP,
eMachines, or Intel.

> Again
>there is more money in software sales then there is in hardware.

Right. What Fortune 500 company are you CEO of?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:33:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The iPod doesn't even equate. It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer
>> good
>> compared to corporate investment in computer technology. Their are
>> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and Steve
>> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
>> and
>> stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he didn't
>> do
>> this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place but it's
>> just
>> not there because no one has gone after the current install base.
>
> Once the Mactel switch is complete, what would be the motivation to buy
> an Apple-branded computer if you can run OS X on an e-Machine?

Exactly. Apple's making more money on ipods than they could ever dream of
making from the Mac. Since they have no financial need or rationalization
for the product, the next logical step is to phase out the box and simply
release the OS as Copyleft open source in a version that runs on a generic
Wintel box, just to piss off MS.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:33:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dgk8df$f18$1@nnrp.gol.com>, David J. Littleboy
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> Exactly. Apple's making more money on ipods than they could ever dream of
> making from the Mac. Since they have no financial need or rationalization
> for the product, the next logical step is to phase out the box and simply
> release the OS as Copyleft open source in a version that runs on a generic
> Wintel box, just to piss off MS.

I have no qualms about pissing off Bill (he's just 100 miles away).
Back when OS X first came out, I was working in a computer store and
all of the Linux geeks there lusted after OS X.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:33:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D gk8df$f18$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>> Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The iPod doesn't even equate. It's a cheap dollar disposable consumer
>>> good
>>> compared to corporate investment in computer technology. Their are
>>> millions of PCs in all sorts of businesses ripe for the picking and
>>> Steve
>>> could put a huge dent into the MS dynasty if he'd get off his high horse
>>> and
>>> stop being a control freak. I'm an MS user and I'm very sorry he didn't
>>> do
>>> this years ago. I want REAL competition in the market place but it's
>>> just
>>> not there because no one has gone after the current install base.
>>
>> Once the Mactel switch is complete, what would be the motivation to buy
>> an Apple-branded computer if you can run OS X on an e-Machine?
>
> Exactly. Apple's making more money on ipods than they could ever dream of
> making from the Mac. Since they have no financial need or rationalization
> for the product, the next logical step is to phase out the box and simply
> release the OS as Copyleft open source in a version that runs on a generic
> Wintel box, just to piss off MS.

There you got this is exactly right regardless if they piss of MS or not.
As a consumer this would be the absolute best thing that could happen in the
computer world.

--

Rob
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:26:48 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>> They were fantastically successful until brain rot (and new
>>> leaders) had their way. If the government's anti-trust pussycats
>>> awakened from their naps, Windows might not have throttled OS/2, a
>>> joint MS/IBM venture of a superior OS that MS killed, with visions
>>> of dollar signs in their eyes. Had that not happened, IBM "coulda
>>> been a contenduh".
>>>
>> As I recall it, MS didn't kill OS/2, they simply stopped development
>> on it, and left it to IBM, which couldn't compete with Window's
>> development.
>> Although, that could be seen as killing it, I suppose.
>
> It was that and more. They went ahead full speed with Windows
> development, all the while assuring their partner IBM, that Windows
> was just a temporary stopgap and OS/2 was the preferred future OS. I
> think that within a year or so MS officially abandoned OS/2. IBM
> continued to improve it, but Microsoft modified new releases of
> their own Office apps. that put up dire warning messages about
> incompatibility and would refuse to install. The reality was that
> the apps. had no problems running under OS/2, but the install
> program was designed to sniff out the OS and take appropriate
> evasive action if the enemy was sighted, er, smelled. And don't
> forget that at the time, these 16-bit MS apps. were running under
> 100% pure Microsoft Windows code, which itself was wrapped within
> OS/2. One of the versions of OS/2 had the user buy and use
> Microsoft's Windows as part of the install procedure.

OS/2 Warp had some nasty infelicities running 16-bit apps (UI hanging).
Those were all fixed by moving to Win NT 3.51 at the point win 95 was
released. I still have several 16-bit apps that I use on a daily basis.

In terms of under-the-hood OS design, there's nothing wrong with NT/2K/XP.
It's a fully modern OS and, even better, is based on Unicode from the ground
up. MS figured out that Unicode was the right thing when it still wasn't
clear that Unicode was going to survive the "not-in-my sandbox" attitude of
the Asian players. Good show, MS!

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:32:42 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> OS/2 Warp had some nasty infelicities running 16-bit apps (UI hanging).
> Those were all fixed by moving to Win NT 3.51 at the point win 95 was
> released. I still have several 16-bit apps that I use on a daily basis.

I have no problems at all with NT 3.51. MS hired an expert to
design an OS for them and he did an excellent job. But until that
was available, OS/2 was widely used within MS. I've been told by
one of Microsoft's employees that worked in their NYC office that
they successfully resisted efforts handed down from above to replace
their OS/2 servers for several years. But what you've pointed out
doesn't have any bearing on what was being discussed, which was
Microsoft's successful attempt to kill OS/2 (win at all costs/world
domination of the desktop with Windows everywhere), which the
history of their involvement with OS/2 is merely another in a long
list of examples.


> In terms of under-the-hood OS design, there's nothing wrong with
> NT/2K/XP. It's a fully modern OS and, even better, is based on
> Unicode from the ground up. MS figured out that Unicode was the
> right thing when it still wasn't clear that Unicode was going to survive
> the "not-in-my sandbox" attitude of the Asian players. Good show, MS!

I don't disagree with this, but I'm puzzled by why you seem to
think it has some bearing on what was being discussed. It could
make for another interesting OT thread. Given your well known
biases, I wonder if you've heard of a joint MS/Canon alliance?
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:11:56 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> I have no problems at all with NT 3.51. MS hired an expert to
>design an OS for them and he did an excellent job. But until that
>was available, OS/2 was widely used within MS. I've been told by
>one of Microsoft's employees that worked in their NYC office that
>they successfully resisted efforts handed down from above to replace
>their OS/2 servers for several years. But what you've pointed out
>doesn't have any bearing on what was being discussed, which was
>Microsoft's successful attempt to kill OS/2 (win at all costs/world
>domination of the desktop with Windows everywhere), which the
>history of their involvement with OS/2 is merely another in a long
>list of examples.

I don't see it that way.
MS doesn't have the influence over IBM you seem to think it does.
Once IBM took over OS/2., IMB made the decision to not develop it
properly, and finally kill it.
Blaming this on MS just won't work.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:37:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:

> But what you've pointed out
> doesn't have any bearing on what was being discussed, which was
> Microsoft's successful attempt to kill OS/2 (win at all costs/world
> domination of the desktop with Windows everywhere), which the
> history of their involvement with OS/2 is merely another in a long
> list of examples.

At least my memory has it that the above is revisionist history. As an OS/2
Warp user at the time, it was painfully obvious that OS/2 died not due to
anything that MS did (other than to produce a competing product), but
through IBM's refusal to even try to market it.

>> In terms of under-the-hood OS design, there's nothing wrong with
>> NT/2K/XP. It's a fully modern OS and, even better, is based on
>> Unicode from the ground up. MS figured out that Unicode was the
>> right thing when it still wasn't clear that Unicode was going to survive
>> the "not-in-my sandbox" attitude of the Asian players. Good show, MS!
>
> I don't disagree with this, but I'm puzzled by why you seem to
> think it has some bearing on what was being discussed. It could
> make for another interesting OT thread.

The point here, since you missed it, was that MS's "attempt to kill OS/2"
consisted largely of providing better technology.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:37:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:37:48 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> At least my memory has it that the above is revisionist history. As an OS/2
> Warp user at the time, it was painfully obvious that OS/2 died not due to
> anything that MS did (other than to produce a competing product), but
> through IBM's refusal to even try to market it.

That was certainly a factor, but OS/2 had enough going for it that
it could have been successful had Microsoft not engaged in unethical
and probably illegal (though nigh unprovable) practices.


> >> In terms of under-the-hood OS design, there's nothing wrong with
> >> NT/2K/XP. It's a fully modern OS and, even better, is based on
> >> Unicode from the ground up. MS figured out that Unicode was the
> >> right thing when it still wasn't clear that Unicode was going to survive
> >> the "not-in-my sandbox" attitude of the Asian players. Good show, MS!
> >
> > I don't disagree with this, but I'm puzzled by why you seem to
> > think it has some bearing on what was being discussed. It could
> > make for another interesting OT thread.
>
> The point here, since you missed it, was that MS's "attempt to kill OS/2"
> consisted largely of providing better technology.

Wrong. You may hold fervently to the theory that MS simply built
a better mousetrap, but they didn't get where they are today by
creating superior products. They used every weapon in their arsenal
to kill competitors. If better technology was as big a factor as
you think it was, there would have been no reason for MS to make
sure that their Office apps wouldn't work with, or would have
problems running under OS/2. After all, if OS/2 was as preordained
to failure as you imply, MS could have made even more money allowing
their apps to be used with OS/2, and then they'd be able to sell
more "windows" versions after the demise of OS/2.


> OS/2 Warp had some nasty infelicities running 16-bit apps (UI hanging).
> Those were all fixed by moving to Win NT 3.51 at the point win 95 was
> released. I still have several 16-bit apps that I use on a daily basis.

Were the apps that caused the UI to hang by any chance produced in
Redmond? MS has a history of allowing their own apps to use
undocumented OS internals. Usually this was used to put them one up
on their competitors, but it also allowed them to use easy
workarounds for bugs that might not be fixed soon in the OS.
Sometimes it was to obtain higher performance than using documented
system interrupts would allow. But the drawback often was
instability. Had you run the same apps under 16-bit Windows, you
well might have had similar problems with the UI hanging.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>> OS/2 Warp had some nasty infelicities running 16-bit apps (UI hanging).
>> Those were all fixed by moving to Win NT 3.51 at the point win 95 was
>> released. I still have several 16-bit apps that I use on a daily basis.
>
> Were the apps that caused the UI to hang by any chance produced in
> Redmond?

I forget the details. There was a well-know glitch in the Win-16 subsystem
that made using Win 3.1 apps unpleasant, and IBM had no intention of fixing
it. There were some nice OS/2 apps, Watcom, Describe, etc. but for my work,
I needed to use Win 3.1 apps. And it was unpleasant avoiding the problems.

> MS has a history of allowing their own apps to use
> undocumented OS internals.

To the best that I can tell, this is just silly. MS goes out of their way to
make life pleasant for developers. They were a tad slow catching up to the
C++ standard, but that's because they designed their own container classes
and expected Win apps to use them. But MS C++ is one of the best around.

The OS/2 Win 3.1 subsystem problems weren't MS, they was IBM. Again, I
forget the details, but the design of the OS/2 keyboard handler didn't mesh
well with the Win 3.1 model.

> Usually this was used to put them one up
> on their competitors, but it also allowed them to use easy
> workarounds for bugs that might not be fixed soon in the OS.
> Sometimes it was to obtain higher performance than using documented
> system interrupts would allow. But the drawback often was
> instability. Had you run the same apps under 16-bit Windows, you
> well might have had similar problems with the UI hanging.

Nope. Said apps worked fine under Win 3.1, and still work fine under XP.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:42:42 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> MS has a history of allowing their own apps to use
>> undocumented OS internals.
>
> To the best that I can tell, this is just silly. MS goes out of their way to
> make life pleasant for developers. They were a tad slow catching up
> to the C++ standard, but that's because they designed their own
> container classes and expected Win apps to use them. But MS C++
> is one of the best around.

Silly as in "MS is silly to use undocumented OS internals in their
own apps", or silly as in "I don't believe they do that"? MS C++ is
nice, but even if they use if for their own MS Office apps, it in no
way makes it impossible for MS programmers to utilize assembly
language routines that directly interact with the OS, even if the
other 99+% of the app's code follows the rules that they expect
competitor's apps to follow. There may be less reason for MS to do
this today, and given XP's greater integrity MS may have abandoned
this practice, but it was in use at least up until the late 90's.


> The OS/2 Win 3.1 subsystem problems weren't MS, they was IBM. Again, I
> forget the details, but the design of the OS/2 keyboard handler didn't
> mesh well with the Win 3.1 model.

What??? The Win 3.1 subsystem was 100% Microsoft code. IBM took
over development of the OS/2 wrapper, but (as I noted before) anyone
could buy a version of OS/2 lacking the Windows subsystem. But
they'd then have to supply their own copy of Windows to complete the
OS/2 install. The split into versions with and without Windows 3.1
was so that IBM would be able to reduce the royalties paid to MS if
some versions were sold without including the Windows subsystem.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 7:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:42:42 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>> MS has a history of allowing their own apps to use
>>> undocumented OS internals.
>>
>> To the best that I can tell, this is just silly. MS goes out of their way
>> to
>> make life pleasant for developers. They were a tad slow catching up
>> to the C++ standard, but that's because they designed their own
>> container classes and expected Win apps to use them. But MS C++
>> is one of the best around.
>
> Silly as in "MS is silly to use undocumented OS internals in their
> own apps",

No. Silly as in "squawking about that strikes me as incomprehensible and
stupid". The whole UI is nothing but system calls, and the product is what
they say it is. If you don't like the widgets they provide, write your own;
the hooks are all there. I don't see anything wrong with the OS widget set
being a bit on the simple side, and MS writing better widgets for their own
apps. Every app has specific needs that no widget set can respond to, so
developers have to customize.

It sounds to me that it's just implementers who are too lazy to do the work
and want MS to give it to them for free.

> or silly as in "I don't believe they do that"? MS C++ is
> nice, but even if they use if for their own MS Office apps, it in no
> way makes it impossible for MS programmers to utilize assembly
> language routines that directly interact with the OS, even if the
> other 99+% of the app's code follows the rules that they expect
> competitor's apps to follow.

User's can write assembly code that calls the OS if they like. It's a pain,
though.

> There may be less reason for MS to do
> this today, and given XP's greater integrity MS may have abandoned
> this practice, but it was in use at least up until the late 90's.

Again, as someone who has actually programmed for 'Doze, I find the whole
"undocumented calls" rant completely senseless. What do these magic services
do? It sounds to me like incompetent developers looking for an excuse. There
are lots of apps out there that do all sorts of interesting non-standard
stuff (e.g. "Transcribe!") without whimpering.

Again, if there really were all sorts of undocumented interfaces, what do
they do? And why should MS provide them as services to anyone else?

As OS development proceeds, it's only natural that stuff developed in house
gets tried out in house before it's released as a product.

But MS Word didn't win the WP wars on OS calls, it won them because the PC
rags would make tables of features and rate WPs on the number of check
marks. And Word had the most features. (I liked Word for DOS, but hate Word
for Windows so much I wrote my own WP: it uses the Wordpad widgets, and does
exactly what I want/need, no more, not less.)

>> The OS/2 Win 3.1 subsystem problems weren't MS, they was IBM. Again, I
>> forget the details, but the design of the OS/2 keyboard handler didn't
>> mesh well with the Win 3.1 model.
>
> What??? The Win 3.1 subsystem was 100% Microsoft code. IBM took
> over development of the OS/2 wrapper, but (as I noted before) anyone
> could buy a version of OS/2 lacking the Windows subsystem. But
> they'd then have to supply their own copy of Windows to complete the
> OS/2 install.

Like I said, I don't remember the details. But using Win 3.1 apps under OS/2
Warp wasn't pleasant, and that unpleasantness was due to Warp's keyboard
model interacting badly with the Win 3.1 keyboard model. IBM messed up and
refused to fix it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 10:43:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:18:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> I don't see it that way.
> MS doesn't have the influence over IBM you seem to think it does.
> Once IBM took over OS/2., IMB made the decision to not develop it
> properly, and finally kill it.
> Blaming this on MS just won't work.

You have your own way of seeing many things, but you're often
wrong. IBM made reasonable business decisions, not realizing the
extent to which MS would go (including illegal practices) to destroy
any and all competitors. Anyone that studies Microsoft and has no
axe to grind knows that painting MS as innocent just won't work.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 10:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:43:59 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:18:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> I don't see it that way.
>> MS doesn't have the influence over IBM you seem to think it does.
>> Once IBM took over OS/2., IMB made the decision to not develop it
>> properly, and finally kill it.
>> Blaming this on MS just won't work.
>
> You have your own way of seeing many things, but you're often
>wrong. IBM made reasonable business decisions, not realizing the
>extent to which MS would go (including illegal practices) to destroy
>any and all competitors. Anyone that studies Microsoft and has no
>axe to grind knows that painting MS as innocent just won't work.

I have no axe to grind for MS at all. You're reading far too much into
what's being said.
If IBM underestimated MS, that's IBM's fault. According to you, IBM
certainly should have known who they were dealing with, *IF* your
version is true.
The fact remains that IBM had OS/2 to do with as they would, and they
failed to develop it into a better OS.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:27:28 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>>> I don't see it that way.
>>> MS doesn't have the influence over IBM you seem to think it does.
>>> Once IBM took over OS/2., IMB made the decision to not develop it
>>> properly, and finally kill it.
>>> Blaming this on MS just won't work.
>>
>> You have your own way of seeing many things, but you're often
>>wrong. IBM made reasonable business decisions, not realizing the
>>extent to which MS would go (including illegal practices) to destroy
>>any and all competitors. Anyone that studies Microsoft and has no
>>axe to grind knows that painting MS as innocent just won't work.
>
> I have no axe to grind for MS at all. You're reading far too much into
> what's being said.

Look who's reading far too much into what was said. I didn't say
that you're a big MS defender. What I will say is that you often
seem to enjoy arguing, and if taking contrarian views is required,
will jump at the chance. Would you say that Microsoft has not
engaged in illegal practices?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:12:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:43:43 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

Message-ID: <dglmnc$rag$1@nnrp.gol.com>

>> Silly as in "MS is silly to use undocumented OS internals in their
>> own apps",
>
> No. Silly as in "squawking about that strikes me as incomprehensible
> and stupid". The whole UI is nothing but system calls, and the product
> is what they say it is. If you don't like the widgets they provide, write
> your own; the hooks are all there. I don't see anything wrong with the
> OS widget set being a bit on the simple side, and MS writing better
> widgets for their own apps. Every app has specific needs that no
> widget set can respond to, so developers have to customize.
>
> It sounds to me that it's just implementers who are too lazy to do
> the work and want MS to give it to them for free.

Ah, the contemptuous little boy returns. What you disagree with
is seen as squawking, incomprehensible and stupid. You're only
revealing your limitations, because it's clear that you don't have a
clue what I was talking about.


>> or silly as in "I don't believe they do that"? MS C++ is
>> nice, but even if they use if for their own MS Office apps, it in no
>> way makes it impossible for MS programmers to utilize assembly
>> language routines that directly interact with the OS, even if the
>> other 99+% of the app's code follows the rules that they expect
>> competitor's apps to follow.
>
> User's can write assembly code that calls the OS if they like. It's a
> pain, though.

It's more than a pain. What you or most other developers can do
with assembly language is less than what some MS programmers can do.
I've already described why this is so, so there's no reason to spell
it out again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.


>> There may be less reason for MS to do this today, and given XP's
>> greater integrity MS may have abandoned this practice, but it was
>> in use at least up until the late 90's.
>
> Again, as someone who has actually programmed for 'Doze, I find
> the whole "undocumented calls" rant completely senseless. What do
> these magic services do? It sounds to me like incompetent developers
> looking for an excuse. There are lots of apps out there that do all sorts
> of interesting non-standard stuff (e.g. "Transcribe!") without
> whimpering.

You're talking through ignorance, and if anyone is guilty of going
off on a rant, it's you. Can you ever avoid the name calling or
insults that are your stock in trade when someone criticizes a
company or its products that you seem sworn to defend? Almost
anything can be programmed, but some things can't be done as swiftly
if you don't know how to bypass certain inefficient internal Windows
routines. I'm mighty impressed with anyone that is on such familiar
terms with Windows that they can call it "Doze". You must really
know a lot more about Windows internals than most people. NOT


> Again, if there really were all sorts of undocumented interfaces,
> what do they do? And why should MS provide them as services to
> anyone else?

At this point it's clear that you don't deserve remedies to your
ignorance, but I'll give you a clue or two. Do you think
Microsoft's SQL Server has no advantages over Sybase, Informix,
Oracle or other database systems? If not, why do you think that
they've developed their own database servers to compete on an even
playing field with Microsoft? There are several good reasons, but
one big one is that Microsoft reserves critical, efficient I/O
methods for themselves. Sometimes it allows an MS app to bypass
something that would bog down an app, such as flushing buffers to
disk at inopportune times. Find a "widget" that can control that.
As for why the undocumented services should be provided to anyone
else, that's a strange thing to say after you're denied that they
exist. Only an utter fool wouldn't know why these services should
be provided to all developers. Note - I'm not saying that anything
developed by the MS apps. division should be shared. I'm saying
that MS's OS division should document to all others what it
documents to its own application developers. If you disagree with
this, find someone else to argue that point, because it's too stupid
an argument to engage in, as it would show an extreme, irrational MS
bias.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:35:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:29:36 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>> DOS (or MSDOS) was hardly the beginning, unless you're referring
>> to IBM's Disk Operating System, used on some of their early small
>> mainframe computers.
>
> I'll see your DOS and raise you TOS on the 7074. :-)

The computer that ran DOS was, IIRC, an IBM 360/20. I don't think
that it was supposed to have supported that particular OS, but one
of the quite bright workers there (he may also have been a student)
hacked it to get it to work with the computer. In the far corner of
the room was a much smaller IBM computer. I don't recall the model
number, but it didn't use standard Hollerith cards. I think the ones
it used were narrower and taller, and the character encoding was
slightly different. In the opposite corner was a nice PDP-11/45.


> Actually, on micros, CP/M preceeded DOS by a good piece. And
> before that, you had the Altair (I believe programmed with front panel
> switches. Prolly more behind that.

If you're talking about the MSDOS type of DOS, I agree. I had
CP/M versions 1.3, 1.4 and 2.x, mostly on IBM format (soft sectored
SSSD) 8" floppy disks. The Altair did use the front panel to enter
the boot loader, but after that, a tape reader (paper or magnetic)
was often used, along with a console device that ranged from
Teletypes to DEC printers (with keyboards) to keyboards and
monitors. At the time I couldn't afford the Altair or its more
rugged equivalent made by IMSAI. Mine was all handbuilt (including
soldering all the pins of every S-100 socket, all 18 or 20 of 'em.
It also had a monitor in ROM, so no front panel switches were
needed.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:25:47 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:26:48 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>> They were fantastically successful until brain rot (and new
>>> leaders) had their way. If the government's anti-trust pussycats
>>> awakened from their naps, Windows might not have throttled OS/2, a
>>> joint MS/IBM venture of a superior OS that MS killed, with visions
>>> of dollar signs in their eyes. Had that not happened, IBM "coulda
>>> been a contenduh".
>>>
>> As I recall it, MS didn't kill OS/2, they simply stopped development
>> on it, and left it to IBM, which couldn't compete with Window's
>> development.
>> Although, that could be seen as killing it, I suppose.
>
> It was that and more. They went ahead full speed with Windows
>development, all the while assuring their partner IBM, that Windows
>was just a temporary stopgap and OS/2 was the preferred future OS. I
>think that within a year or so MS officially abandoned OS/2. IBM
>continued to improve it, but Microsoft modified new releases of
>their own Office apps. that put up dire warning messages about
>incompatibility and would refuse to install. The reality was that
>the apps. had no problems running under OS/2, but the install
>program was designed to sniff out the OS and take appropriate
>evasive action if the enemy was sighted, er, smelled. And don't
>forget that at the time, these 16-bit MS apps. were running under
>100% pure Microsoft Windows code, which itself was wrapped within
>OS/2. One of the versions of OS/2 had the user buy and use
>Microsoft's Windows as part of the install procedure.

Originally, IBM had the rights to source code developed up to
Win 3.1. IBM would sell OS.2 for Windows which wrapped around your own
Windows, for somewhat less cost. They had the source code, so knew
where to put their hooks in. For a larger price, you got the "full"
OS/2, which contained its own integrated Winows, for those who didn't
have a current version of Windows.

It was suspected at the time, that MS put out Win 3.11, at
least partially, as an "OS/2 breaker".

Later, up as late as Warp 4, a Windows of sorts was still
being included, but it was back at the Win 3.1 level, so couldn't run
most current Windows apps, like Office.

I was once given the job of evaluating StarOffice for OS/2 to
see if it would allow some people to work with and produce current
Office docs. It was an early version and did a decent job with most
docs, but had a few fatal flaws with regard to the large volume of
current Office material used by other parts of the company.

Since there were only a handful of programmers still using
OS/2 for appliction development, they found it cheaper to just toss a
second box on their desks with NT (later W2K) installed for email,
web, documentation, etc.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:14:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:14:29 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> Originally, IBM had the rights to source code developed up to
> Win 3.1. IBM would sell OS.2 for Windows which wrapped around
> your own Windows, for somewhat less cost. They had the source
> code, so knew where to put their hooks in. For a larger price, you got
> the "full" OS/2, which contained its own integrated Winows, for those
> who didn't have a current version of Windows.
>
> It was suspected at the time, that MS put out Win 3.11, at
> least partially, as an "OS/2 breaker".
>
> Later, up as late as Warp 4, a Windows of sorts was still
> being included, but it was back at the Win 3.1 level, so couldn't run
> most current Windows apps, like Office.

That's as I remember it, and it was nothing new for MS. Remember
"DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run"?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 6:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:37:48 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>> But what you've pointed out
>> doesn't have any bearing on what was being discussed, which was
>> Microsoft's successful attempt to kill OS/2 (win at all costs/world
>> domination of the desktop with Windows everywhere), which the
>> history of their involvement with OS/2 is merely another in a long
>> list of examples.
>
>At least my memory has it that the above is revisionist history. As an OS/2
>Warp user at the time, it was painfully obvious that OS/2 died not due to
>anything that MS did (other than to produce a competing product), but
>through IBM's refusal to even try to market it.


Hear, hear! They even made it hell for their own employees to
get the thing. I happened to be working for a division of IBM at the
time. They mandated that each employee should be given a free copy for
home, not office, use, to help in the evangelization effort.

The job of ordering the copies fell on the HR guy on the
project. He surveyed the troops to see which of the two versions they
wanted. He then submitted an order for 75 of these and 125 of the
other. No way, he was told -- a separate application had to be
manually entered for each employee stating which version. He went on
vacation and left the apps to his assistant. So much for the once
legendary IBM marketing machine. "Every employee a mamber of the sales
force." Yeah, sure.
>
>>> In terms of under-the-hood OS design, there's nothing wrong with
>>> NT/2K/XP. It's a fully modern OS and, even better, is based on
>>> Unicode from the ground up. MS figured out that Unicode was the
>>> right thing when it still wasn't clear that Unicode was going to survive
>>> the "not-in-my sandbox" attitude of the Asian players. Good show, MS!
>>
>> I don't disagree with this, but I'm puzzled by why you seem to
>> think it has some bearing on what was being discussed. It could
>> make for another interesting OT thread.
>
>The point here, since you missed it, was that MS's "attempt to kill OS/2"
>consisted largely of providing better technology.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
!