Microsoft & Katrina

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

peakester@earthlink.net wrote:

>My 12-year old son asked me yesterday what Bill Gates was contributing
>to the Katrina melee?

Were he my son I would try to show him that there is far more satisfaction
in doing what one can to help those in need than in asking what others are
doing.

> Anybody heard anything regarding Mr. Money?

It seems that you are jealous of Gates' success and that your son has
learned it from you.

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> My 12-year old son asked me yesterday what Bill Gates was contributing
> to the Katrina melee? Anybody heard anything regarding Mr. Money?
> peakester
>

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

--fletch

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Michael R. Kesti wrote:
> peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >My 12-year old son asked me yesterday what Bill Gates was contributing
> >to the Katrina melee?
>
> Were he my son I would try to show him that there is far more satisfaction
> in doing what one can to help those in need than in asking what others are
> doing.
>
> > Anybody heard anything regarding Mr. Money?
>
> It seems that you are jealous of Gates' success and that your son has
> learned it from you.

Thank you for being my moral judge. I just asked asked a question, it
was not a criticism. Please feel free to inform me further of how I
should live my life and send me a postcard of the glass house you live
in.
>
> --
> ========================================================================
> Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
> | two, one and one make one."
> mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<peakester@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Michael R. Kesti wrote:
>> peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> >My 12-year old son asked me yesterday what Bill Gates was contributing
>> >to the Katrina melee?
>>
>> Were he my son I would try to show him that there is far more satisfaction
>> in doing what one can to help those in need than in asking what others are
>> doing.
>>
>> > Anybody heard anything regarding Mr. Money?
>>
>> It seems that you are jealous of Gates' success and that your son has
>> learned it from you.
>
>Thank you for being my moral judge. I just asked asked a question, it
>was not a criticism. Please feel free to inform me further of how I
>should live my life and send me a postcard of the glass house you live
>in.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure jealous of Gates' success.
If I could become a multimillionare by selling bad software that I bought
at a discount elsewhere and not providing proper support for it, I sure
would.
--scott
(who talked to Mr. Gates in 1978 and was told that the HP 2101 was not
a good machine and that even though he sold a version of BASIC for it,
he didn't intend on actually fixing any of the bugs in it.)


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm jealous because I didn't buy stock in MS in 1995 when Win 95 came
out :-)

Mr Soul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 01:17:03 -0700, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:

>My 12-year old son asked me yesterday what Bill Gates was contributing
>to the Katrina melee? Anybody heard anything regarding Mr. Money?

He and his wife started a charity a few years ago, after criticism
(I forget from who) of "not giving enough to charity." It seems they
ARE giving to help Katrina victims:

http://gatesfoundation.org/

>peakester

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure jealous of Gates' success.
> If I could become a multimillionare by selling bad software that I bought
> at a discount elsewhere and not providing proper support for it, I sure
> would.

Nah, you have more class than that.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:
> He and his wife started a charity a few years ago

And have pumped a considerable amount of cash into it. There are people
who can be criticised legitimately for not giving back; Bill Gates --
despite my many complaints about his company's products -- is not one of
them.

Find a better topic to attack him on, and PLEASE find a better place to
do it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Kesselman wrote:
> Ben Bradley wrote:
> > He and his wife started a charity a few years ago
>
> And have pumped a considerable amount of cash into it. There are people
> who can be criticised legitimately for not giving back; Bill Gates --
> despite my many complaints about his company's products -- is not one of
> them.
>
> Find a better topic to attack him on, and PLEASE find a better place to
> do it.

I am aware of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I did not attack
him, I asked a freakin' question. If you re-examine my initial
question, you will find that I simply relayed a question that my son
asked as a matter of information. I referred to him as Mr. Money in a
sense of cynicism but not criticism. I am in awe of Bill Gates and his
accomplishments. I read the book about his rise and was thoroughly
impressed.

I am dumfounded by the attitude of moral and technical criticism
sometimes displayed on this group. Please don't be so inclined to read
something in that is not there and please don't bother to be my moral
judge.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> I am in awe of Bill Gates and his
> accomplishments. I read the book about his rise and was thoroughly
> impressed.

What book would that be? I've been wanting to look further
into what he did besides milk a very high profit cash cow.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm sorry I didn't by MS stock in 1982 when I found that my PRC work cohorts
who actually knew something about computers were buying MS-DOS rather than
IBM's CPM. Then again, a little of that money should have gone into Lotus
too, because it was the reason people were buying MS-DOS.

Maybe I'd have a U87 by now! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

<google@MusicIsLove.com> wrote in message
news:1126221803.983620.216290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm jealous because I didn't buy stock in MS in 1995 when Win 95 came
> out :-)
>
> Mr Soul
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dr. Dolittle" <pdo@spambusters.net> wrote in message
news:3obuh0F59ofnU3@individual.net...

Dr Dolittle - or whatever name you are using today.

You are on notice to cease and desist forging an address on our domain as
your from address.

Complaints filed with appropriate authorities.

Apologies to other users of these groups - Dr Doliitle does not have an
account with us.

abuse@spambusters.net

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> I'm sorry I didn't by MS stock in 1982 when I found that my PRC work cohorts
> who actually knew something about computers were buying MS-DOS rather than
> IBM's CPM. Then again, a little of that money should have gone into Lotus
> too, because it was the reason people were buying MS-DOS.

Huh? People were buying MS-DOS because it was shipped with
the computers they bought from IBM. IBM never employed CPM.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news frfot12t90@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>
> peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> > I am in awe of Bill Gates and his
> > accomplishments. I read the book about his rise and was thoroughly
> > impressed.
>
> What book would that be? I've been wanting to look further
> into what he did besides milk a very high profit cash cow.
>

Despite theories about how he started.. he actually created that cash cow..
not the computer industry.. but the monster of Microsoft. Which I am
indebted to for 20 years of a vairly good livin'

>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jona Vark wrote:

> Despite theories about how he started.. he actually created that cash cow..
> not the computer industry.. but the monster of Microsoft. Which I am
> indebted to for 20 years of a vairly good livin'

IBM created that cash cow. Gates' wagon was just hitched to
it. Had the Boys From Boca been able to get even the
slightest support from IBM for an internally written OS (the
PC was an outlaw, skunk works project) we'd never have heard
of Gates. It was IBM's failure, not Gate's brilliance that
hitched him to that cow.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1126221803.983620.216290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
google@MusicIsLove.com wrote:

> I'm jealous because I didn't buy stock in MS in 1995 when Win 95 came
> out :-)
>
> Mr Soul



Be sure to sell it when it peaks in 2000! ;>

MSFT ain't done squat for anyone holding it for the past 6 years. Kinda
hard to believe, eh?





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Roger W. Norman wrote:
>> I'm sorry I didn't by MS stock in 1982 when I found that my PRC work cohorts
>> who actually knew something about computers were buying MS-DOS rather than
>> IBM's CPM. Then again, a little of that money should have gone into Lotus
>> too, because it was the reason people were buying MS-DOS.
>
>Huh? People were buying MS-DOS because it was shipped with
>the computers they bought from IBM. IBM never employed CPM.

When you bought the computer from IBM, you could either get PC-DOS for
forty bucks, or you could get CP/M-86 for around $500. Most folks did
not take the Digital Research route.

For some reason yet unknown to me, the PC became phenomenally popular
and DR missed out on the whole thing. They later came up with a more
reliable MS-DOS clone called DR-DOS, which got them sued out of existence.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

To address the original question...

I have no idea how much -- if any -- Microsoft will contribute to Katrina
relief and rebuilding. However, it will match up to $12,000 of employee
contributions.

That's right -- $12,000. Not $120,000, or $1,200,000, or $12,000,000.

I'd like to think that was a typo. Microsoft could donate $12M without even
blinking.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>Huh? People were buying MS-DOS because it was shipped with
>>the computers they bought from IBM. IBM never employed CPM.
>
>
> When you bought the computer from IBM, you could either get PC-DOS for
> forty bucks, or you could get CP/M-86 for around $500. Most folks did
> not take the Digital Research route.

I was involved with those things from the gitgo and have
absolutely no memory of that. That troubles me. :-(

I checked it out, though and you're absolutely right. From
Wikipedia:

"Rather than licence CP/M-86 from Digital Research (as the
other 8088-based computer makers had done) IBM chose to
equip disk based IBM PCs with PC-DOS as standard, and offer
CP/M-86 as an extra-cost option. (PC-DOS, for practical
purposes, could at that time be regarded as essentially
identical with MS-DOS. Both products were based on Seattle
Computer Products QDOS, itself a legally questionable clone
of CP/M.)"


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 15:29:44 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure jealous of Gates' success.
>If I could become a multimillionare by selling bad software that I bought
>at a discount elsewhere and not providing proper support for it, I sure
>would.
>--scott
> (who talked to Mr. Gates in 1978 and was told that the HP 2101 was not
> a good machine and that even though he sold a version of BASIC for it,
> he didn't intend on actually fixing any of the bugs in it.)


You shag one sheep.... :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, one guy decided he could spend some of his money to help. And it
seems like a pretty good plan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPSt...

or Google Frank Stronach Katrina to read other articles.

(Yes, he is the father of Cdn. politician Belinda Stronach, who has
made the news in various ways, including being a "friend" of Bill
Clinton's).

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news fttif0d84@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Jona Vark wrote:
>
> > Despite theories about how he started.. he actually created that cash
cow..
> > not the computer industry.. but the monster of Microsoft. Which I am
> > indebted to for 20 years of a vairly good livin'
>
> IBM created that cash cow. Gates' wagon was just hitched to
> it. Had the Boys From Boca been able to get even the
> slightest support from IBM for an internally written OS (the
> PC was an outlaw, skunk works project) we'd never have heard
> of Gates. It was IBM's failure, not Gate's brilliance that
> hitched him to that cow.


naw.. IBM was simply in at the forefront They did very little development on
their own. They did not take PCs seriously enough. No matter what you think
of Gates.. MS has been innovative and productive.







>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>
>naw.. IBM was simply in at the forefront They did very little development on
>their own. They did not take PCs seriously enough. No matter what you think
>of Gates.. MS has been innovative and productive.

Innovative? It took until 1995 for MS to introduce real pre-emptive
multitasking, which was 1960s technology. We won't even TALK about
how long it took them to get to the 1970 level of virtual memory technology.

These are the folks who resisted the introduction of the internet and who
fought against putting IP hooks in the kernal.

We don't need any more innovation like this.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 10 Sep 2005 23:45:35 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>naw.. IBM was simply in at the forefront They did very little development on
>>their own. They did not take PCs seriously enough. No matter what you think
>>of Gates.. MS has been innovative and productive.
>
>Innovative? It took until 1995 for MS to introduce real pre-emptive
>multitasking, which was 1960s technology. We won't even TALK about
>how long it took them to get to the 1970 level of virtual memory technology.
>
>These are the folks who resisted the introduction of the internet and who
>fought against putting IP hooks in the kernal.
>
>We don't need any more innovation like this.

Here's one of Microsoft's most recent attempts at "innovation:"

http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?p=208

>--scott

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>naw.. IBM was simply in at the forefront They did very little development
>>on
>>their own. They did not take PCs seriously enough. No matter what you
>>think
>>of Gates.. MS has been innovative and productive.
>
> Innovative? It took until 1995 for MS to introduce real pre-emptive
> multitasking, which was 1960s technology. We won't even TALK about
> how long it took them to get to the 1970 level of virtual memory
> technology.
>
> These are the folks who resisted the introduction of the internet and who
> fought against putting IP hooks in the kernal.
>

MS doesn't innovate anything, except hooks that require you to use other MS
products and sales/marketing agreements. They copied, bought, and borrowed
virtually every new feature ever added to their products. I doubt they have
had more than a dozen truly innovative ideas since 1984.

-John O

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> When you bought the computer from IBM, you could either get PC-DOS for
> forty bucks, or you could get CP/M-86 for around $500. Most folks did
> not take the Digital Research route.
>
> For some reason yet unknown to me, the PC became phenomenally popular
> and DR missed out on the whole thing. They later came up with a more
> reliable MS-DOS clone called DR-DOS, which got them sued out of existence.

No, it did not. Almost the reverse, in fact.
You see, MSDOS was based on QDOS (which they bought in). QDOS stole a lot
of code from DRI's CP/M, to the extent that when it came to court, Gary
Kildall was about to summon a '(C)1976 Digital Research' message from MSDOS.
DRDOS was not a 'clone' of MSDOS, it was essentially a different fork of CP/M
that was compatible with MSDOS.
IMHO this was a good time for the PC.. you could choose which OS you wanted
to run from three or four competing vendors, and pretty much all off-the-shelf
software would simply work.

What killed DRDOS was Windows 95, by and large. Windows 3.1 ran on top of
MSDOS, but it could also run on top of DRDOS (which I did at the time).
When Microsoft bundled MSDOS as an integral part of Windows 95, DRI lost
most of their market. At this point DRI was owned by Novell, and they
essentially lost heart and dropped the product line at that point.

In late 1996, Caldera bought the rights to DRDOS (or Novell DOS as was) and
resurrected the product line using many of the original UK engineers.
Development was done in a converted barn in the outskirts of Andover, Hampshire.

The original plan was to release all the source code, essentially putting the
product out to pasture. The massive demand changed their minds on this and
only a few chunks of source code were released before they backpedalled and
tried to push the software for the embedded market. This worked reasonably
well, and things like Partition Magic used DRDOS for rescue boot disks and
the like.

The other motivation for Caldera US was to sue Microsoft for killing their
product.. some believe that this was the real reason for resurrecting DRDOS,
and to be sure, when it looked like they were going to win the court case,
they killed off Caldera UK and left DRDOS for dead once again.

The story hasn't quite ended, because DRDOS has been bought by someone else
now.. http://www.drdos.com/

Disclaimer: I did my year-in-industry as a kernel developer for Caldera UK.
Lots of fun and interesting things happened there, like the DOS web browser
'DR-Webspyder', and a utility that allowed Windows 95 to run on top of
DRDOS. I curse the day I did not 'borrow' a copy of that program.

Cheers,

> --scott
>


--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Developing a U6/U7 clone http://ire.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KA u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> What killed DRDOS was Windows 95, by and large. Windows 3.1 ran on top of
> MSDOS, but it could also run on top of DRDOS (which I did at the time).
> When Microsoft bundled MSDOS as an integral part of Windows 95, DRI lost
> most of their market. At this point DRI was owned by Novell, and they
> essentially lost heart and dropped the product line at that point.
>

One additional factor might have been Microsoft's licensing arrangement with
hardware manufacturers. I worked at Heathkit/Zenith Data Systems in those
days, and the deal was that ZDS had to pay MS a licensing fee for *every* PC
that left the building, whether it contained MS-DOS or DR-DOS, or nothing.
Naturally, ZDS didn't encourage DR-DOS because they would have to pay for
two OS's, and couldn't always pass the cost along. I imagine the deal with
other PC vendors was the same.

-John O

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JohnO wrote:

>>
>> What killed DRDOS was Windows 95, by and large. Windows 3.1 ran on top
>> of MSDOS, but it could also run on top of DRDOS (which I did at the
>> time). When Microsoft bundled MSDOS as an integral part of Windows 95,
>> DRI lost
>> most of their market. At this point DRI was owned by Novell, and they
>> essentially lost heart and dropped the product line at that point.
>
> One additional factor might have been Microsoft's licensing arrangement
> with hardware manufacturers. I worked at Heathkit/Zenith Data Systems in
> those days, and the deal was that ZDS had to pay MS a licensing fee for
> *every* PC that left the building, whether it contained MS-DOS or DR-DOS,
> or nothing. Naturally, ZDS didn't encourage DR-DOS because they would have
> to pay for two OS's, and couldn't always pass the cost along. I imagine
> the deal with other PC vendors was the same.

Quite right. While that didn't actually kill them, it definitely impeded
their market penetration substantially and was probably one of the things
that drove them to be acquired by Novell.

>
> -John O

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"JohnO" <johno@@&%heathkit##.com> wrote in message
news:77VUe.12$nF3.3@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> >>naw.. IBM was simply in at the forefront They did very little
development
> >>on
> >>their own. They did not take PCs seriously enough. No matter what you
> >>think
> >>of Gates.. MS has been innovative and productive.
> >
> > Innovative? It took until 1995 for MS to introduce real pre-emptive
> > multitasking, which was 1960s technology. We won't even TALK about
> > how long it took them to get to the 1970 level of virtual memory
> > technology.
> >
> > These are the folks who resisted the introduction of the internet and
who
> > fought against putting IP hooks in the kernal.
> >
>
> MS doesn't innovate anything, except hooks that require you to use other
MS
> products and sales/marketing agreements. They copied, bought, and borrowed
> virtually every new feature ever added to their products. I doubt they
have
> had more than a dozen truly innovative ideas since 1984.
>
> -John O
>
>

There is no doubt tto me that this attitude is not based in any fact but
instead some kind of corporate envy, hatred, animosity of some
sort.Regardless of the paths you wouldhave preferred MS to take.. they
created the monster.

Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and 70's technology..
Well it is preposterous to claim that the first
PC OSs _should_ have had those features. THe only arrived with 64k! . And
remember.. it wasn't until 14 years after MS did it that Apple FINALLY
followed suit. It wasn't until OSX that memory management for macs arrived.













>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>
>Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and 70's technology..
>Well it is preposterous to claim that the first
>PC OSs _should_ have had those features. THe only arrived with 64k! .

Why not? The competition did. There were many systems with real multitasking
available for the 80286 AT, including the UCSD P-System, and Xenix. This
was long before Windows 95.

Hell, you could buy a TRS-80 Model 16 computer with real multitasking and
real virtual memory at RADIO SHACK back when the PC was new. RADIO SHACK.
When your operating system is being compared unfavorably with a Radio Shack
product, something is really wrong.

Hell, I had ten simultaneous users in 256K on an RSX-11 machine a decade
before the PC came out. Not 256M, but 256K.

>And
>remember.. it wasn't until 14 years after MS did it that Apple FINALLY
>followed suit. It wasn't until OSX that memory management for macs arrived.

So? Just because Apple couldn't design a reliable system doesn't make it
any better that Microsoft couldn't.

At least Apple finally got on the ball with the Mach kernal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> MS doesn't innovate anything, except hooks that require you to use other
> MS
>> products and sales/marketing agreements. They copied, bought, and
>> borrowed
>> virtually every new feature ever added to their products. I doubt they
> have
>> had more than a dozen truly innovative ideas since 1984.
>>
>> -John O
>>
>>
>
> There is no doubt tto me that this attitude is not based in any fact but
> instead some kind of corporate envy, hatred, animosity of some
> sort.
>

That's a pretty broad stroke you've painted. But no, I use a ton of MS
products, mainly because I have to use standard tools...not because I'm in
love with the company. They make some great software, but to characterize
them as innovators is to fall victim to their PR Bullshit Machine.

"I'm the education president." "We're innovators." Same thing. ;-) Ask the
people in the trenches who've lived and worked there long enough to remember
life before either.

-John O

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 12 Sep 2005 22:18:03 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and 70's technology..
>>Well it is preposterous to claim that the first
>>PC OSs _should_ have had those features. THe only arrived with 64k! .
>
>Why not? The competition did. There were many systems with real multitasking
>available for the 80286 AT, including the UCSD P-System, and Xenix. This
>was long before Windows 95.
>
>Hell, you could buy a TRS-80 Model 16 computer with real multitasking and
>real virtual memory at RADIO SHACK back when the PC was new. RADIO SHACK.

I suppose that predates the Amiga, which is often touted as the
first microcomputer with a pre-emptive multitasking OS. Perhaps it was
the first microcomputer with a pre-emptive multitasking OS and a GUI.

>When your operating system is being compared unfavorably with a Radio Shack
>product, something is really wrong.
>
>Hell, I had ten simultaneous users in 256K on an RSX-11 machine a decade
>before the PC came out. Not 256M, but 256K.
>
>>And
>>remember.. it wasn't until 14 years after MS did it that Apple FINALLY
>>followed suit. It wasn't until OSX that memory management for macs arrived.
>
>So? Just because Apple couldn't design a reliable system doesn't make it
>any better that Microsoft couldn't.

I think it's sad that technically they (all of them) COULD have,
but they were likely prevented by other things (compatibility with
previous software, internal politics, whatever...).

>
>At least Apple finally got on the ball with the Mach kernal.
>--scott

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>On 12 Sep 2005 22:18:03 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and 70's technology..
>>>Well it is preposterous to claim that the first
>>>PC OSs _should_ have had those features. THe only arrived with 64k! .
>>
>>Why not? The competition did. There were many systems with real multitasking
>>available for the 80286 AT, including the UCSD P-System, and Xenix. This
>>was long before Windows 95.
>>
>>Hell, you could buy a TRS-80 Model 16 computer with real multitasking and
>>real virtual memory at RADIO SHACK back when the PC was new. RADIO SHACK.
>
> I suppose that predates the Amiga, which is often touted as the
>first microcomputer with a pre-emptive multitasking OS. Perhaps it was
>the first microcomputer with a pre-emptive multitasking OS and a GUI.

There were dozens of microcomputer systems at the time, from guys like
Altos and Charles River Data Systems, that used some flavour of 16-bit
Unix. They weren't as cheap as the Amiga, though, and they didn't have
any gui.

Was the Atari ST system, GEM, really multitasking? I remember seeing a demo
of it when it was first announced but I never really played with the thing.

>>>And
>>>remember.. it wasn't until 14 years after MS did it that Apple FINALLY
>>>followed suit. It wasn't until OSX that memory management for macs arrived.
>>
>>So? Just because Apple couldn't design a reliable system doesn't make it
>>any better that Microsoft couldn't.
>
> I think it's sad that technically they (all of them) COULD have,
>but they were likely prevented by other things (compatibility with
>previous software, internal politics, whatever...).

Right, and that's what is so shameful. I want a bumper sticker that says
"My operating system was easy to use in 1972."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news g5csr$o5r$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
> >
> >Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and 70's
technology..
> >Well it is preposterous to claim that the first
> >PC OSs _should_ have had those features. THe only arrived with 64k! .
>
> Why not? The competition did.


Simple answer.. 90% of the PC users simply didn't 'require' it. Not that
they might not have benefit from it.. they simply didn't 'need' it.
Microsoft had its sights set on so many other things that I suspect
multitasking was projected for development later in the cycle of Windows.
Remember that the competition was the Mac. not any other platform. As you
have pointed out there were other operating systems available for the AT
which did have these features.. of course they did not emerge as the most
popular operating systems.

With respect to the TRS-80. Apparently it wasn't that fine of a machine. It
has been gone for decades. Although I was an Apple / Commodore / IBM / Atari
developer in the early 80's I was never asked to consider any products for
the TRS-80 because , other than a few features that you mention, it was a
miserable piece of trash. I believe it earned the nickname Trash-80 rather
quickly.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>
>With respect to the TRS-80. Apparently it wasn't that fine of a machine. It
>has been gone for decades. Although I was an Apple / Commodore / IBM / Atari
>developer in the early 80's I was never asked to consider any products for
>the TRS-80 because , other than a few features that you mention, it was a
>miserable piece of trash. I believe it earned the nickname Trash-80 rather
>quickly.

RS sold a bunch of machines. They had the Z-80-based Model I, III, and IV,
which ran TRSDOS, their proprietary OS. You could also get a third party
OS called NEWDOS-80. These were single-threaded machines with an OS that
was about on the same level as CP/M although without the easily reconfigured
BIOS (since it never needed to be ported to other hardware).

They also had the Model II, which was a standard CP/M machine that could
run everybody's CP/M code. It was basically sold to small businesses
rather than as a home machine, after RS realized that a lot of the I machines
were going into small businesses and that there was a market there. It
also had a Z-80.

Then they had the Color Computer, which was a 6809-based machine. It ran
only an interpreted BASIC without any real OS (much like the Apple and
Atari), but the 6089 was surprisingly powerful and had a multiply.

For larger small business applications, they sold the Model-16, which was
a real 16-bit computer with a 68000, running Xenix and able to support a
number of terminals. It was pretty cheaply built by DEC standards, but
it was a lot cheaper than the comparable DEC product, and a lot of them got
used in things like point of sale applications, small press publishing, etc.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news g763h$f4r$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
> >
> >With respect to the TRS-80. Apparently it wasn't that fine of a machine.
It
> >has been gone for decades. Although I was an Apple / Commodore / IBM /
Atari
> >developer in the early 80's I was never asked to consider any products
for
> >the TRS-80 because , other than a few features that you mention, it was a
> >miserable piece of trash. I believe it earned the nickname Trash-80
rather
> >quickly.
>
> RS sold a bunch of machines. They had the Z-80-based Model I, III, and
IV,
> which ran TRSDOS, their proprietary OS. You could also get a third party
> OS called NEWDOS-80. These were single-threaded machines with an OS that
> was about on the same level as CP/M although without the easily
reconfigured
> BIOS (since it never needed to be ported to other hardware).
>
> They also had the Model II, which was a standard CP/M machine that could
> run everybody's CP/M code. It was basically sold to small businesses
> rather than as a home machine, after RS realized that a lot of the I
machines
> were going into small businesses and that there was a market there. It
> also had a Z-80.
>
> Then they had the Color Computer, which was a 6809-based machine. It ran
> only an interpreted BASIC without any real OS (much like the Apple and
> Atari), but the 6089 was surprisingly powerful and had a multiply.
>
> For larger small business applications, they sold the Model-16, which was
> a real 16-bit computer with a 68000, running Xenix and able to support a
> number of terminals. It was pretty cheaply built by DEC standards, but
> it was a lot cheaper than the comparable DEC product, and a lot of them
got
> used in things like point of sale applications, small press publishing,
etc.

Yes.. I remember the model line.. all history now as they failed to create
computers, operating systems and applications that could compete with
Microsoft. You were apparently quite taken with them. We used to think of
them as the nerd's computers.. And from the look of things you may have been
a nerd! Which in my mind is a good thing.







> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jona Vark <noemail@all.com> wrote:
>
>Yes.. I remember the model line.. all history now as they failed to create
>computers, operating systems and applications that could compete with
>Microsoft. You were apparently quite taken with them. We used to think of
>them as the nerd's computers.. And from the look of things you may have been
>a nerd! Which in my mind is a good thing.

No, actually I made fun of them at the time, like I did most of the
microcomputer industry. Remember if you aren't running 36 bits,
you're not playing with a full DEC.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:i7oVe.380$5n4.289@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net

> Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and
> 70's technology.. Well it is preposterous to claim that
> the first PC OSs _should_ have had those features.

Agreed. Even IBM's OS/360 arrived on the market in 1967
without multitasking.

> They only arrived with 64k!

Proper multitasking computers of the day of the first IBM PC
had megabytes or big fractions thereof. Even the PDP-11/45
which was Unix's first fully competent mult-tasking host had
256k.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> When your operating system is being compared unfavorably with a Radio Shack
> product, something is really wrong.

Yeah, buddy, it means you got bad batteries!

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:CvydnXzymoX5FrTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> "Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
> news:i7oVe.380$5n4.289@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net
>
> > Regarding multitasking and virtual memory being 60's and
> > 70's technology.. Well it is preposterous to claim that
> > the first PC OSs _should_ have had those features.
>
> Agreed. Even IBM's OS/360 arrived on the market in 1967
> without multitasking.
>
> > They only arrived with 64k!
>
> Proper multitasking computers of the day of the first IBM PC
> had megabytes or big fractions thereof. Even the PDP-11/45
> which was Unix's first fully competent mult-tasking host had
> 256k.
>

true.. I was referring to the personal computers.. I remember paying $300
for 16k of static ram for my SYM1 in 78



>
>