"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:vqh544525eginmae9foba0ksll5pts1kul@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:50:16 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
> <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:
>
>>"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other
>>> versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a
>>> bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP
>>> General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM
>>> was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that
>>> distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to
>>> configure and tweak.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>>For now Linux is seeing better times, but Vista has hoisted the hardware
>>requirements, and in a couple of years from now, many will have upgraded
>>their computers. Vista will have improved enough that it is the force to
>>be
>>reckoned with, and then Windows 7 will release, easily able to run on the
>>same hardware as Vista.
>
> Vista will have improved enough?
>
> Funny to watch fanboys change their tune as they constantly move the
> goal posts. I though Vista was already the greatest version of Windows
> ever. If so, why does it need to improve?
>
> After all that was the song you guys were humming over a year ago.
> However now that Vista has been out awhile and proved to be just
> another bloated, poorly implemented, bug riddled, sluggish pile of
> coding mistakes like every prior version of Windows before it was, you
> now say wait to the next version. I'll say one thing good about you
> Mike, you sure know how to repeat the party line issued from Redmond.
>
> Microsoft has been saying the same thing for over two decades... just
> wait for the next version of Windows, it will knock your socks off.
> Sure, right. Only problem is I like tens of millions of others are
> tired of waiting and being disappointed over and over again. People
> are more seriously starting to look at alternatives to Windows.
>
>>In the meantime, Linux will make inroads in third world countries where
>>cheap equipment is all that can be afforded.
>
> You really are clueless and dense on world events aren't you. Would
> you consider China third world? Are you sitting down? Right now China
> has over 300,000,000 MIDDLE CLASS citizens and that number is growing
> at explosive rates. That's as many middle class as the entire
> population of the United States. Are you aware Russia soon might have
> more millionaires then there are in the United States? Their middle
> class is exploding too. While Windows "sales" in China is a drop in
> the bucket they already have more Internet users than in the United
> States. Hint: Those people are running all those computers on
> something, and it isn't paid for copies of Windows.
>
> The reality is Microsoft's time in the sun is fading. That is why
> Ballmer tried, but failed to take over Yahoo, to start building a new
> cash stream since people are fed-up giving Microsoft piles of money
> for one broken OS version after another.
>
> Microsoft's other cash cow Office, has been equaled or surpassed by
> FREE Office alternatives. That's not good news for Microsoft either.
> Their two biggest product lines, Windows and Office are showing signs
> of cracking.
>
> You know what the biggest sign of Microsoft's pending doom really is?
>
> Simple. That would be Bill Gates founder getting ready to throw in the
> towel. His belly no longer burns for Microsoft. He's more than willing
> to give Microsoft over to flimflam artists like Ballmer while he
> starts to give away his billions. That surely can't be good for
> Microsoft's future. No, not when the founder only 53 year old decides
> he's had enough. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall clearer than
> anybody.
>


In China, they pirate Vista. I doubt that many use Linux.

Re. Vista being the best, like all new releases of anything, it needed work
and, in any event, suggesting that something is the best yet does not mean
that it is without issues. Many Vista issues were down to a lack of driver
support, but yes, it was bogged down with some of its own. Needless to say
that Vista has moved on but the FUD remains..

I assume that Steve B has filed your resume away where the sun doesn't
shine, otherwise we would no doubt be seeing quantum improvements coming out
of Redmond.. :-)


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:dvm544h8gjq9p4opif21etamk7i8r9ot7k@4ax.com...

> Microsoft doesn't care about stability or the fact that each new OS
> requires more and more HP to run effectively. Otherwise there would be
> an SP4 and/or there would be official upgrade releases that added new
> features. Instead, we get a bug ridden, driver lacking, software
> incompatible, new OS every few years. Face it: they care only about
> selling you a new OS.

Don't disagree with that at all. However that is the problem, neither home
consumers nor businesses want to rework their computer infrastructure every
3 years.

> But, the problem for them is that there are really not that many new
> features to add to an OS. Look at a comparison of 2000, to XP, to
> Vista. What have they really added in terms of user features? VPN? I'm
> at a loss to find anything else that's more than a refinement on the
> user side. On the system side, they've simply gobbled more HP to
> deliver the same set of user features (that's not a feature, it's a
> major flaw).

Agree there. So between extra resources and additional DRM...we have Vista,
offers noting else.


> I long for a return to the old days, when OS vendors built an
> operating system then continually refined it in each release to make
> it better. Wholesale replacement was not an option because customers
> demanded stability and reduced life cycle costs. Over time, we ended
> up with some incredibly stable, bug free, solid, dependable OS's. You
> can't do that if you keep replacing your code wholesale.

Linux, the BSDs and Solaris do this. I have run Solaris 7 programs on
Solaris 10. Big departures can occur, like SunOS to Solaris but are decades
apart. Linux, is a series of incremental improvements. Continious
improvent taken seriously.

>>XP can compete with Linux and do well, but Vista....nada. Vista is like
>>the
>>Titanic after the water was leaking in. Vista drives people to Apple and
>>Linux. It will be slow at first, but will pick up as word spreads. See
>>Eee
>>PC sales....suppliers can't keep the Linux varieties in stock.
>
> Not to worry. Windows 7 will fix everything! (Note sarcasm, see above,
> note repeat cycle).

Been around too long to believe that Win7 will fix much. For everything it
solves, it will create new issues.

In fact, it is going to create a situation where you have 3 major OSes in
place for Microsoft alone. XP, Vista and Win 7. Not to mention variations
there in and of others like W2008. I anticipate MS-Windows 100 OS pickup.

(since XP was made)
(Assuming Win7/W2008 follows Vista/2003 fragmentation)

(5) Windows Server 2008 Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Itanium, Web
(3) Windows Server 2008 (No Hyper-V) Standard, Enterprise, Enterprise
(4) Windows Server 2008 x64 Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web
(3) Windows Server 2008 x64 (No Hyper-V) Standard, Enterprise, Enterprise
(5) Windows Win7 OEM: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Basic, Enterprise
(5) Windows Win7 Full: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Basic, Enterprise
(4) Windows Win7 x64 OEM: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Enterprise
(4) Windows Win7 x64 Full: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Enterprise
(5) Windows Vista OEM: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Basic, Enterprise
(5) Windows Vista Full: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Basic, Enterprise
(4) Windows Vista x64 OEM: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Enterprise
(4) Windows Vista x64 Full: Ultimate, Business, Premium, Enterprise
(4) Windows Server 2003 Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web
(4) Windows Server 2003 x64: Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web
(2) Windows Server 2003 Itanium: Enterprise, Datacenter
(3) XP Home, Pro, MCE (2003 & 2005)
(6) XP OEM Home, Pro, Pro x64, MCE, Tablet, Mini (EeePC)
(10) CE (List is long, includes pocket PC, phone etc, this is conservative)

Did I miss any? Any not quite right?

70 not including CE, which makes at least 80+ different ways to buy
MS-Windows sold since XP was introduced.

I pity the poor MSCE that has to carry all those DVDs to a consulting gig.

No wonder the M$ salesperson can't remember pricing....as the above comes in
diffent different, business licensing and retail. And even then the support
variations.... Whew.

No wonder they can't fix Vista, engineering is buried in configuration
management issues.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:12:10 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
<mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

>
>I assume that Steve B has filed your resume away where the sun doesn't
>shine, otherwise we would no doubt be seeing quantum improvements coming out
>of Redmond.. :-)

Ballmer is a classic example of some Bozo promoted above his
abilities. Seen dozens of his kind in my career. He's loud,
shamelessly disrespecting of customer concerns, won't listen.
Probably surrounds himself with "yes" men, blames everybody else when
things go wrong. Likely blames his hardware partners for everything
wrong with Vista. Still doesn't understand how he could have messed up
the Yahoo deal. A real prize Stevie is, a real prize.

You know I cut through bull**** like a hot knife through butter, so
maybe you would be surprised to learn that since old Stevie became CEO
in 2000, Microsoft's stock has lost roughly half it's value with it
going sideways the last 5-6 years meaning if you held nearly any other
technology stock you would have done way better. For example Apple. It
was trading at sub $30 in 2000 when Stevie took the reins of
Microsoft. Last Friday Apple's stock closed at $188.75

For such a "performance" ie blowing a easy deal with Yahoo, flat stock
performance for half a decade and dumping Vista on the market before
it was ready Stevie gets about a million dollars in annual salary,
plus very generous stock options. His current net worth is roughly 15
billion.

Instead of me referring to you as a fanboy, maybe I should switch to
just plain dumb boy because you really don't know how bad things are
for the boys of Redmond.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:cvj54496f6aan8oguok3deqgev6oodq5k3@4ax.com...

> Fast forward to 1981. IBM noticed Apple's growing success but also
> realized their major blunder using a closed architecture, just stupid
> and based on greed. Literally overnight IBM put together a team of 12
> engineers who with off the shelf parts gave birth to the PC using Open
> Architecture. Shortly before IBM for reasons only God knows approached
> Bill Gates, a total nobody at the time to write a OS for this PC. You
> know the rest of that story.

I know some history on this. IBM designed the PC, 8088 @ 4.7 MHz. Trouble
was IBM started building them and warehousing them before their internal OS
development was finished with Digital Research. Boca Ratan comes to mind,
anyway IBM had big problems and was desperate for a working OS. Someone
found Microsoft as an alternative to the failing relationship with Digital
Research. For Microsoft, MS-DOS was originally known as QDOS (Quick and
Dirty OS) which borrowed from CP/M. Essentially, MS-DOS was stripped down
CP/M. Also added was Basic to the BIOS, borrowed from earlier works on the
PET and Altair ports and then IBM had a PC with OS/programming. Initially,
IBM actually helped people market and paid people to write programs for this
PC. I believe Microsoft got $25 per MS-DOS sold via IBM.

Competators at the time included: Apple, Tandy/Radio Shack and Commodore
Pet and a few others. There were plenty of micro based systems, 6800, 6502,
8080, Z80 and others before the 8088 IBM PC. IBMs ants in the pants to get
to market as they could forsee the micro based personal market going big
time and they wanted in fast.

While Bill is credited with the founding of Microsoft, this is folk lore. A
real known picture of the Microsoft 11:

http://kennethg.blogspot.com/2006/06...-founders.html

11 or 12 people started Microsoft, most of which were moved asside before or
when Ballmer came into Microsoft in 1980. There is a lot of hidden stories
in this period to tell as American media likes the single shining knight
story. That is, Bill Gates is not the single founder of Microsoft, not even
apartner, but one of many. But Ballmer was with Microsoft just before they
hit it big time with the IBM contract.

On Jun 1, 11:33*am, "Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@unixhome.net> wrote:
> "Unknown" <unkn...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>
> news:YeA0k.6202$Ri.533@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Your argument is totally ridiculous. The primary reason for Microsoft's
> > popularity is simply because it is so flexible.
> > What do you want your computer to do? *Microsoft's OS does it. Who uses
> > Microsoft's OS? *Everyone. Corporations and businesses alike.
> > Can't you get that through your head?
>
> You must be a newbie to the business. *This is just history repeating
> itself.
>
> Times have changed before. *Microsoft, unless it changes it's ways will be
> the next Novell. *BTW, Novell does sell Linux SUSE and would not doubt
> NetWare, but is far behind RHT. *In the desktop, I wouldn't doubt Ubuntuhas
> eclipsed SUSE.
>
> Lets list some tech companies that have seen better days, or specifically
> major chunck of their business activitied evaporated in market share
> ownership, many which were heavy into workstations:
>
> Digital
> Compaq
> Sperry/UNIVAC
> Novell
> NorTel
> Bell Labs
> BaaN
> IBM (PC, mainframes and workstations, they evolved to services)
> Amdahl
> Wyse
> Tandy/Radio Shack
> Apple (as in II and IIe but recovering)
> Commodore (PET, C64)
> Data General
> Motorola (MC6802 or MC6809 anyone?)
> Zilog
> Zerox/PARC
> SCO (Yep)
> (more that I have missed for sure)
>
> Even Linux has road kill. *Survival of the fitest.
>
> Now I am not saying Microsoft is going out of business. *I am saying it's
> price elasticity is shot to hell, innovation has peeked, and market share in
> the total market is shrinking. *Linux chewing away at the bottom, and Apple
> chewing away at the top represents a major problem to future business growth
> of Microsoft. *Market maturization, commoditization and saturation too.
>
> With Vista, there is a market brand damage and the Microsoft can do no wrong
> attitude is under more pressure than ever before. *This is likley going to
> accelerate.
>
> I will predict Q3 and more so Q4 financial reports this year is not going to
> be nice for MSFT as it has to spin a new marketing model to grow. *Whichis
> what the purchase of Yahoo was all about. *Bill and Steve know their market
> predicament and MSFT futures or they would have made such an offer. *MSNBC
> is another. *MSFT is a 2 trick pony, MS-Windows and MS-Office.

- Both which can now be economically replaced with FLOSS.

Free/Libre/Open Source Software [FLOSS]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS

>
>
> > "Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> >news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>
> >> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungk...******.com> wrote in message
> >>news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> >>> "Dave" <nos...@biteme.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
> >>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>
> >>>> How do you explain this?
>
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>
> >>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
> >>> working with supercomputers *are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
> >>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
> >>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux
> >>> does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast
> >>> for an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you
> >>> should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications,
> >>> you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition
> >>> your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick
> >>> with what you know.
> >>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
> >>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
> >>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
> >>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most
> >>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for
> >>> plug and play applications.
>
> >>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run
> >>> a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable
> >>> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that
> >>> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of
> >>> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any
> >>> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for
> >>> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its
> >>> not really worth the time for most people
>
> >>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
> >>> works for *those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
> >>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for
> >>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than
> >>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably
> >>> will ever be.
>
> >>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going
> >>> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer
> >>> users.
>
> >>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
> >>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone.I
> >>> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have
> >>> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and
> >>> it was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section
> >>> was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and
> >>> know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.
>
> >>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
> >>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
> >>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store
> >>> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000
> >>> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts..
> >>> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and
> >>> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until
> >>> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.
>
> >> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? *Heck no, it
> >> has only begun. *I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>
> >> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. *I place it just
> >> on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. *I will grant, XP is
> >> quite mature, but stagnant. *Where as Linux is still, and will always
> >> perpetually evolve.
>
> >> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump
> >> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. *Where as
> >> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. *The later can't get continuous
> >> improvement, can't evolve. *Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. *Its
> >> active development has ceased! *Understand that. *They all moved onto
> >> Win 7 for the next disruption.
>
> >> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:30:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>What I don't get is why Microsoft seems so dead set on killing off XP.

Because lots of large corporations buy into the "upgrade and stay
current" scenario. Then there's all the training they sell, new
exams, etc. They also get to obsolete older versions of other programs
which forces new purchases of dated, but working, software.

It's billions of $'s.

"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:918644hk9oig14pi86ck95dngcdre4uav8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:30:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>
>>What I don't get is why Microsoft seems so dead set on killing off XP.
>
> Because lots of large corporations buy into the "upgrade and stay
> current" scenario. Then there's all the training they sell, new
> exams, etc. They also get to obsolete older versions of other programs
> which forces new purchases of dated, but working, software.
>
> It's billions of $'s.

And do you think these companies pay these billions for nothing?
If they got nothing they wouldn't pay.

Very stupid comment. Ever stop to think what causes the crashes?
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:34r544tefr33t5vlj5lrdmk0u5avjihl47@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:38:01 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>
> wrote:
>
>>Your argument is totally ridiculous. The primary reason for Microsoft's
>>popularity is simply because it is so flexible.
>>What do you want your computer to do? Microsoft's OS does it.
>
> I had no idea people wanted their systems to crash so often.
>

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:44:33 GMT, "Canuck57"
<dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote:

>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:cvj54496f6aan8oguok3deqgev6oodq5k3@4ax.com.. .
>
>> Fast forward to 1981. IBM noticed Apple's growing success but also
>> realized their major blunder using a closed architecture, just stupid
>> and based on greed. Literally overnight IBM put together a team of 12
>> engineers who with off the shelf parts gave birth to the PC using Open
>> Architecture. Shortly before IBM for reasons only God knows approached
>> Bill Gates, a total nobody at the time to write a OS for this PC. You
>> know the rest of that story.
>
>I know some history on this. IBM designed the PC, 8088 @ 4.7 MHz. Trouble
>was IBM started building them and warehousing them before their internal OS
>development was finished with Digital Research. Boca Ratan comes to mind,
>anyway IBM had big problems and was desperate for a working OS. Someone
>found Microsoft as an alternative to the failing relationship with Digital
>Research. For Microsoft, MS-DOS was originally known as QDOS (Quick and
>Dirty OS) which borrowed from CP/M. Essentially, MS-DOS was stripped down
>CP/M. Also added was Basic to the BIOS, borrowed from earlier works on the
>PET and Altair ports and then IBM had a PC with OS/programming. Initially,
>IBM actually helped people market and paid people to write programs for this
>PC. I believe Microsoft got $25 per MS-DOS sold via IBM.
>
>Competators at the time included: Apple, Tandy/Radio Shack and Commodore
>Pet and a few others. There were plenty of micro based systems, 6800, 6502,
>8080, Z80 and others before the 8088 IBM PC. IBMs ants in the pants to get
>to market as they could forsee the micro based personal market going big
>time and they wanted in fast.
>
>While Bill is credited with the founding of Microsoft, this is folk lore. A
>real known picture of the Microsoft 11:
>
> http://kennethg.blogspot.com/2006/06...-founders.html
>
>11 or 12 people started Microsoft, most of which were moved asside before or
>when Ballmer came into Microsoft in 1980. There is a lot of hidden stories
>in this period to tell as American media likes the single shining knight
>story. That is, Bill Gates is not the single founder of Microsoft, not even
>apartner, but one of many. But Ballmer was with Microsoft just before they
>hit it big time with the IBM contract.

One thing I've always wondered about is why IBM the powerhouse it was
and still is didn't write it's own OS for their PC totally in house.

I've seen that famous picture many times. I think history never gave
Paul Allen, extreme right bottom row much credit.

Are you going to argue top posting now?
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:k6r544the8aip40jo4mrv4d2eqe48am7mr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:40:54 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>
> wrote:
>
>>What a bunch of misguided trash.
>
> Oh I see, so misguided you couldn't counter a single point.
>
> You did manage to top post though. Figures.
>

If you have to wonder about that you have no business sense whatsoever.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:uk9644hi999a6np0kmg3ed133egbgse7ev@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:44:33 GMT, "Canuck57"
> <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:cvj54496f6aan8oguok3deqgev6oodq5k3@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>> Fast forward to 1981. IBM noticed Apple's growing success but also
>>> realized their major blunder using a closed architecture, just stupid
>>> and based on greed. Literally overnight IBM put together a team of 12
>>> engineers who with off the shelf parts gave birth to the PC using Open
>>> Architecture. Shortly before IBM for reasons only God knows approached
>>> Bill Gates, a total nobody at the time to write a OS for this PC. You
>>> know the rest of that story.
>>
>>I know some history on this. IBM designed the PC, 8088 @ 4.7 MHz.
>>Trouble
>>was IBM started building them and warehousing them before their internal
>>OS
>>development was finished with Digital Research. Boca Ratan comes to mind,
>>anyway IBM had big problems and was desperate for a working OS. Someone
>>found Microsoft as an alternative to the failing relationship with Digital
>>Research. For Microsoft, MS-DOS was originally known as QDOS (Quick and
>>Dirty OS) which borrowed from CP/M. Essentially, MS-DOS was stripped down
>>CP/M. Also added was Basic to the BIOS, borrowed from earlier works on
>>the
>>PET and Altair ports and then IBM had a PC with OS/programming.
>>Initially,
>>IBM actually helped people market and paid people to write programs for
>>this
>>PC. I believe Microsoft got $25 per MS-DOS sold via IBM.
>>
>>Competators at the time included: Apple, Tandy/Radio Shack and Commodore
>>Pet and a few others. There were plenty of micro based systems, 6800,
>>6502,
>>8080, Z80 and others before the 8088 IBM PC. IBMs ants in the pants to
>>get
>>to market as they could forsee the micro based personal market going big
>>time and they wanted in fast.
>>
>>While Bill is credited with the founding of Microsoft, this is folk lore.
>>A
>>real known picture of the Microsoft 11:
>>
>> http://kennethg.blogspot.com/2006/06...-founders.html
>>
>>11 or 12 people started Microsoft, most of which were moved asside before
>>or
>>when Ballmer came into Microsoft in 1980. There is a lot of hidden
>>stories
>>in this period to tell as American media likes the single shining knight
>>story. That is, Bill Gates is not the single founder of Microsoft, not
>>even
>>apartner, but one of many. But Ballmer was with Microsoft just before
>>they
>>hit it big time with the IBM contract.
>
> One thing I've always wondered about is why IBM the powerhouse it was
> and still is didn't write it's own OS for their PC totally in house.
>
> I've seen that famous picture many times. I think history never gave
> Paul Allen, extreme right bottom row much credit.
>

"+Bob+" <uctraing@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:918644hk9oig14pi86ck95dngcdre4uav8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:30:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>
>>What I don't get is why Microsoft seems so dead set on killing off XP.
>
> Because lots of large corporations buy into the "upgrade and stay
> current" scenario. Then there's all the training they sell, new
> exams, etc. They also get to obsolete older versions of other programs
> which forces new purchases of dated, but working, software.
>
> It's billions of $'s.

I am sure it is. But also ticking off businesses and customers alike. Many
will jump off.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:45:47 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>
wrote:

>Very stupid comment. Ever stop to think what causes the crashes?

Sure, poor design, bugs and sloppy, bloated untested code.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:00:22 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>
wrote:

>Are you going to argue top posting now?

While not all top posters are idiots, most idiots are top posters.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:03:29 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>
wrote:

>If you have to wonder about that you have no business sense whatsoever.

Really? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to retire nearly 20
years ago just a little past 40.