philip.tellis@iname.com wrote
If they are not computer savvy, they should be using Macs.
how many people do u think can afford macs......
Windows has no place anywhere, and is just trying to be a jack
of all trades, failing at all
i think some people hate to admit it that how much ever blame windows they continue to support it in some way or the other either using some product or creating some applications for it
and by the way seeing the success of windows worldwide, i dont think u can call that failure. remember unix was there in the market for so many years
The maximum number of pc penetration in the world is thanks to windows.That is a fact.
regards, prem.
on 28/7/2001 4:12 PM, premstud@vsnl.com at premstud@vsnl.com wrote:
philip.tellis@iname.com wrote
If they are not computer savvy, they should be using Macs.
how many people do u think can afford macs......
I own a Macintosh...
Its not that non computer savvy people should be using Macs, Its just that those who wish to be more productive than others, Those who wish to be more effective and waste less time for doing day to day Activities like checking mail, typing out letters, spreadsheets, presentations, surfing the net, graphics, etc would prefer to use Mac. (check mail signature)
Windows has no place anywhere, and is just trying to be a jack of all trades, failing at all
Actually it has become the ass of all trades.
The maximum number of pc penetration in the world is thanks to windows.That is a fact.
Maximum PC penetration was due to DOS, not winDOZE.
~Mayuresh
--- premstud@vsnl.com wrote:
i think some people hate to admit it that how much ever blame windows they continue to support it in some way or the other either using some product or creating some
applications for it
and by the way seeing the success of windows worldwide, i dont think u can call that failure. remember unix was there in the market for so many years
The maximum number of pc penetration in the world is thanks to windows.That is a fact.
Sorry, Prem, you've got another think coming. The most important factor responsible for the spread of Microsoft operating systems was not Microsoft, but rather, IBM. The PC was introduced some time in the early eighties (1982, IIRC). Till that time, the 8 bit machines ruled, and CP/M was king. CP/M was an 8 bit OS written for Z80 based microcomputers, and it was so ubiquitous that even Apple, which had is own OS (AppleDOS) for its 6502 architecture, was forced to provide CP/M compatibility through an aftermarket Z80 plug-in board. The spread of CP/M was responsible for Apple's conceding a lot of market share to both CP/M based machines as well as cheap Apple II imitators from the far east, sold under such names as "Orange" and "Tangerine".
The great thing about the Apple was not its design or even CPU, because, (1) the 6502 was decidedly inferior to competing microprocessors, and (2) a whole lot of Apple II's actually ran CP/M. These factors made Apple decide to move away from the open designs of Steve Woczniak when the time came to usher in the next (16 bit) generation of Apple computers, starting with the ill-fated Lisa (1983?) and the original Macintosh.
However, when IBM entered the market with their PC, they made a design decision that would affect the future of computing for all time to come. They opened up the design of their PC to all comers, so much so that the PC reference manuals even published complete cirucitry details amd ROM BIOS source listings. This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible API of PC-DOS (yes, the very same MS-DOS of today), rendered the PC a very attractive backward-compatible development in the microcomputer world as opposed to the closed-box nature of the Apple Macintosh. Never mind that the Mac had a GUI OS as against the PC's command line interface - although the Mac was (and is) arguably a technically superior product, the PC has always won because of its open architecture and API.
The open architecture meant that a lot of people could produce competing products to IBM's, thus allowing the free interplay of market forces to drive down prices to a level which everyone could afford - just like the old days of open-architecture Apple II's, S-100 bus machines and Z80/ CP/M systems. Apple chose to lock up its designs and architecture, and paid the price for it in a meagre market share.
Also, PC-DOS was a reasonably stable system (I've used it from v. 1.1 onwards), and worked well within its single-user/ single tasking limitations. Thus, Microsoft was able to establish a beachhead in the microcomputer market because of the hardware. By the time a usable version of Windows was released (3.0), Microsoft had conquered the PC OS market, simply because there was no alternative. There actually was a CP/M produced for the PC, called CP/M-86 (later renamed DR DOS for Digital Research DOS0, by Digital Research, the owners of the original 8 bit CP/M. Actually IBM had originally sought to use CP/M-86 as the default PC operating system, but difficulties with Gary Kildall, owner of Digital Research, led to their backing Microsoft, who did not even have an OS to offer at that time (when they got the contract, they bought a readymade OS called 86-DOS from a company called Seattle Computer, hired its creator Tim Paterson to code for them, renamed it PC-DOS and sold it to IBM).
Thus, the "success" of Microsoft OS'es is by default - not because of the technical superiority of the product. As Microsoft grew larger and richer, they created a marketing machine that ensured that no competitors were allowed to succeed against Microsoft - neither DR-DOS, nor OS/2. Incidentally, everyone who has used OS/2 will agree that it is a far superior product to Windows. Microsoft has attained its present preeminent position as a microcomputer OS vendor not by merit, but rather by an absolutely fortuitous combination of circumstances, hype, obfuscation, marketing, money and plain old skullduggery.
And there was no Linux - or free BSD - around at the time to challenge Microsoft.
I hope this helps clear your misconceptions about Windows. And if you'd like to learn a little more about the various issues with Windows in terms of programming ease, stability, reliability, etc., just become a low-level Windows programmer - you'll learn to curse it PDQ!
Regards,
Krishnan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
That was an excellent write up by Krishnan... Bravo, keep it up...
And adding my own 64 bits to eliminate some errors and elaborating a couple of points, read on....
The PC was introduced some time in the early eighties (1982, IIRC).
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by Apple, it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched in 1978 again by Apple, this time it had the now legendary trademark of Apple's great aesthetic sense and ease of use, its cool features were: 1. Came in a clear plastic case and looked more like a consumer device 2. Could do colour displays and a bit of graphics 3. Could hook on to TV sets and had some real ground breaking technologies like Sub Pixel font rendering, etc...
Simply put, Apple II was an out of the box computing solution which was very widely accepted by the people, and equally widely copied by the _rest_of_them_ (Even IBM got jealous and started creating the IBM PC)
However, when IBM entered the market with their PC, they made a design decision that would affect the future of computing for all time to come. They opened up the design of their PC to all comers, so much so that the PC reference manuals even published complete cirucitry details amd ROM BIOS source listings.
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM. It took the sheer genius of the guys at a fledgling company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible API of PC-DOS (yes, the very same MS-DOS of today), rendered the PC a very attractive backward-compatible development in the microcomputer world as opposed to the closed-box nature of the Apple Macintosh.
The Macintosh was never supposed to be a standard computing device, it was more targeted to be a consumer computing device created for the masses.
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions...
the PC has always won because of its open architecture and API.
The PC won primarily because it had IBM as its Godfather... When IBM backed it, corporates embraced it, old saying "Nobody ever gets fired for buying an IBM product" When the corporates embraced it, the general public followed...
The open architecture meant that a lot of people could produce competing products to IBM's, thus allowing the
Not just competing products but also products which could supplement it, products like graphic cards, keyboards, displays, etc...
Apple chose to lock up its designs and architecture, and paid the price for it in a meagre market share.
A perfect example of a great product killed by a management full of Jokers... (Steve Jobs was thrown out before that)
Actually IBM had originally sought to use CP/M-86 as the default PC operating system, but difficulties with Gary Kildall, owner of Digital Research, led to their
Gary Kildall wasn't really the undoing, it was rather his wife, who refused to sign the NDA when IBM engineers came knocking and Gary was out somewhere taking a break...
backing Microsoft, who did not even have an OS to offer at that time (when they got the contract, they bought a readymade OS called 86-DOS from a company called Seattle Computer, hired its creator Tim Paterson to code for them, renamed it PC-DOS and sold it to IBM).
The ready made OS wasn't even an OS, it was actually a test program to check motherboards made for the 8080. Tim Paterson called it the QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System.
just become a low-level Windows programmer - you'll learn to curse it PDQ!
Why a low level, try becoming a real Windows programmer, try coding using VC++ and you'll get to know all the idiosyncracies hidden by the resource sucker called "Visual Basic"...
Hope that was informative enough...
Warm Regards,
~Mayuresh
--- Mayuresh A Kathe mayuresh@vsnl.com wrote:
That was an excellent write up by Krishnan...
Thank you!
Bravo, keep it up...
And adding my own 64 bits to eliminate some errors and elaborating a couple of points, read on....
The PC was introduced some time in the early eighties (1982, IIRC).
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by Apple, it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched in 1978 again by Apple,
I meant the IBM PC, since the Apple was never commonly referred to by the handle "PC".
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM.
You're wrong here. IBM published complete ROM BIOS listings for all their PC products in the "Technical Reference" manuals for each product. I have myself referred to the PC-AT Technical Reference extensively to understand the character generator code so that I could write a similar character generator routine for a Xenix video device driver that I was writing at the time. All it took to obtain this stuff was the $15 or so that IBM charged at that time for the Tech Ref. They stopped this practice with the release of Micro Channel, IBM's subsequent failed attempt at locking the box up and throwing the keys away.
It took the sheer genius of the guys at a fledgling company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
No way. The BIOS copy boys (Compaq, AMI, Award and the rest) did what are called "clean-room" implementations of the IBM PC BIOS. This means that they employed programmers who had "never" seen the IBM listings, so that IBM could not come back and point fingers at them for lifting code, and gave them the API that they had to implement, along with the full programming details of the X86 processor family, through Intel's very detailed manuals. Thus the non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering and pretty sophisticated coding, were not rocket science.
This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible API of
PC-DOS
(yes, the very same MS-DOS of today), rendered the
PC
a very attractive backward-compatible development
in
the microcomputer world as opposed to the
closed-box
nature of the Apple Macintosh.
The Macintosh was never supposed to be a standard computing device, it was more targeted to be a consumer computing device created for the masses.
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions...
Well, I do. Just take a walk down Lamington Road and see the number of domestic appliance service manuals on sale!
But seriously, from what you say, it appears that you have not understood the gist of my post regarding the Macintosh. You say that the Macintosh was "never supposed to be a standard computing device". What else was it supposed to be, then? A standard computing device, by your definition, preumably means a device that performs standard computing functions. "Standard computing functions" would, I guess, mean a Turing machine which runs computer programs. I believe the Mac is a typical example of such a machine, albeit with superior graphics and UI functionality. Consumer computing devices intended for the masses means computers targeted at the home market - and here too the PC has far outstripped the Mac in sales. AFAIK, the Mac runs office applications, can connect to the Internet, do e-mail, et al, all of which other computers too do, whether they run Windows, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD. So then how does it differ from a "standard computing device"?
AFAIK, the Mac runs office applications, can connect to the Internet, do e-mail, et al. So then how does it differ from a "standard computing device"?
the PC has always won because of its open architecture and API.
The PC won primarily because it had IBM as its Godfather... When IBM backed it, corporates embraced it, old saying "Nobody ever gets fired for buying an IBM product" When the corporates embraced it, the general public followed...
Then why did IBM's proprietary Micro Channel Architecture and OS/2 (a product that was clearly superior to Microsoft Windows) fail? ISA and later EISA won the war because they were open standards, and MCA was not. OS/2 flopped in spite of IBM's best efforts to make it the standard PC GUI OS.
Apple lost, purely and simply, because the Mac was an absolutely closed proprietary product, so that it was very difficult to write the kind or programs that could be written for the PC, programming down to the bare metal, in short That was how a lot of programs managed to run well on the PC, by doing otherwise verboten things such as directly addressing video memory, disk controllers, etc. Also, the PC's open hardware architecture led to a lot of addons being developed for it, while Apple with its rigid concealment of system design did not allow this to happen. I have myself developed an add-on data capture card for the PC, and was able to do so simply because everyting I needed in the way of information was available - and that too in the pre-Internet days. Well, they lost....
The open architecture meant that a lot of people
could
produce competing products to IBM's, thus allowing
the
Not just competing products but also products which could supplement it, products like graphic cards, keyboards, displays, etc...
Apple chose to lock up its designs and architecture, and paid the
price
for it in a meagre market share.
A perfect example of a great product killed by a management full of Jokers... (Steve Jobs was thrown out before that)
Actually IBM had originally sought to use CP/M-86
as
the default PC operating system, but difficulties
with
Gary Kildall, owner of Digital Research, led to
their
Gary Kildall wasn't really the undoing, it was rather his wife, who refused to sign the NDA when IBM engineers came knocking and Gary was out somewhere taking a break...
Not really. Gary had confirmed an appointment with the IBM suits, who turned up at the appointed time and place, which was Gary's home. Gary however had taken off on a long flight in his private plane, something which cheesed the suits off no end and led them to recommend that Microsoft be tasked with developing the OS for the PC.
backing Microsoft, who did not even have an OS to offer at that time (when they got the contract,
they
bought a readymade OS called 86-DOS from a company called Seattle Computer, hired its creator Tim Paterson to code for them, renamed it PC-DOS and
sold
it to IBM).
The ready made OS wasn't even an OS, it was actually a test program to check motherboards made for the 8080. Tim Paterson called it the QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System.
Dont you mean the 8086/8088?
just become a low-level Windows programmer - you'll
learn
to curse it PDQ!
Why a low level, try becoming a real Windows programmer, try coding using VC++ and you'll get to know all the idiosyncracies hidden by the resource sucker called "Visual Basic"...
Regards,
Krishnan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
on 29/7/2001 11:50 AM, S. Krishnan at sri_krishnan@yahoo.com wrote:
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by Apple, it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched in 1978 again by Apple,
I meant the IBM PC, since the Apple was never commonly referred to by the handle "PC".
That¹s where you are wrong, the term PC was coined for the Apple II, because it was really a Personal Computer compared to rest of them sold in kit form, or even compared to the Apple I.
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM.
You're wrong here. IBM published complete ROM BIOS listings for all their PC products in the "Technical Reference" manuals for each product. I have myself referred to the PC-AT Technical Reference extensively to understand the character generator code so that I could write a similar character generator routine for a Xenix video device driver that I was writing at the time. All it took to obtain this stuff was the $15 or so that IBM charged at that time for the Tech Ref. They stopped this practice with the release of Micro Channel, IBM's subsequent failed attempt at locking the box up and throwing the keys away.
You go round the circle and come back to the same point, I said, IBM didn't publish it straight away, you had to buy it from them. You said, it took $15 to obtain the PC-AT technical Reference.
Whats the difference??
It took the sheer genius of the guys at a fledgling company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
No way. The BIOS copy boys (Compaq, AMI, Award and the rest) did what are called "clean-room" implementations of the IBM PC BIOS. This means that they employed programmers who had "never" seen the IBM listings, so that IBM could not come back and point fingers at them for lifting code, and gave them the API that they had to implement, along with the full programming details of the X86 processor family, through Intel's very detailed manuals. Thus the non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering and pretty sophisticated coding, were not rocket science.
What is the difference between clean room implementations and reverse engineering? Do reverse engineering people get to see a piece of code?
You are taking conflicting stands. In the earlier part of your para you say, "No way, it wasn't reverse engineering", and in the later part you say "non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering..."
Infact, "Clean-Room" implementations done by virgin programmers _should_ be considered Rocket Science because they did have to start from scratch and also be compatible with IBM.
This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible API of PC-DOS (yes, the very same MS-DOS of today), rendered the PC a very attractive backward-compatible development in the microcomputer world as opposed to the closed-box nature of the Apple Macintosh.
The Macintosh was never supposed to be a standard computing device, it was more targeted to be a consumer computing device created for the masses.
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions...
Well, I do. Just take a walk down Lamington Road and see the number of domestic appliance service manuals on sale!
You do?? I never knew you were in the business of manufacturing Washing machines and television sets...
But seriously, from what you say, it appears that you have not understood the gist of my post regarding the Macintosh. You say that the Macintosh was "never supposed to be a standard computing device". What else was it supposed to be, then? A standard computing device, by your definition, preumably means a device that performs standard computing functions. "Standard computing functions" would, I guess, mean a Turing machine which runs computer programs. I believe the Mac is a typical example of such a machine, albeit with superior graphics and UI functionality. Consumer computing devices intended for the masses means computers targeted at the home market - and here too the PC has far outstripped the Mac in sales. AFAIK, the Mac runs office applications, can connect to the Internet, do e-mail, et al, all of which other computers too do, whether they run Windows, OS/2, Linux or FreeBSD. So then how does it differ from a "standard computing device"?
A standard computing device is what you are using now-a-days... The computer on your desktop is a standard computing device... What a consumer oriented computing device means is a device with a set number of features, non expandable and non openable (or rather non-fiddleable) ;-)
AFAIK, the Mac runs office applications, can connect to the Internet, do e-mail, et al. So then how does it differ from a "standard computing device"?
The Mac was meant only to be a way for people to benefit from the awesome power of computers with so much ease that they don't have to worry about remembering sickly commands to accomplish simplistic tasks like copying files from a disk or even simpler tasks like launching an application...
The Mac that you have probably used is not what it was originally designed for, the current day Macs were basically created to compete with IBM + DOS systems in the corporate world...
the PC has always won because of its open architecture and API.
The PC won primarily because it had IBM as its Godfather... When IBM backed it, corporates embraced it, old saying "Nobody ever gets fired for buying an IBM product" When the corporates embraced it, the general public followed...
Then why did IBM's proprietary Micro Channel Architecture and OS/2 (a product that was clearly superior to Microsoft Windows) fail? ISA and later EISA won the war because they were open standards, and MCA was not. OS/2 flopped in spite of IBM's best efforts to make it the standard PC GUI OS.
Because by then Microsoft had already got a strangle hold on the market, not in terms of user base, but in terms of hardware manufacturers backing... In computing, it is not the players with maximum clout or players with best technology win, but its players who have got the maximum momentum behind them that win... Microsoft didn't truly win because of the sheer genius of their leader, but it won because 80% of the x86 hardware was being powered by MS-DOS. Maximum apps were being written for MS-DOS, not CP/M or any other OS...
Apple lost, purely and simply, because the Mac was an absolutely closed proprietary product, so that it was very difficult to write the kind or programs that could be written for the PC, programming down to the bare metal, in short That was how a lot of programs managed to run well on the PC, by doing otherwise verboten things such as directly addressing video memory, disk controllers, etc. Also, the PC's open hardware architecture led to a lot of addons being developed for it, while Apple with its rigid concealment of system design did not allow this to happen. I have myself developed an add-on data capture card for the PC, and was able to do so simply because everyting I needed in the way of information was available - and that too in the pre-Internet days. Well, they lost....
Just think about it, in the years from 1984 (when Mac was introduced) till today, why has there never been even a single product in the x86 camp which even measures up to the high level of user satisfaction of Macintosh? Its primarily because by maintaining strict control over the system design, Apple was able to enforce a certain amount of quality control which is absent in the Wintel world... Infact, "Quality Wintel products" is an oxymoron...
Or rather, most Wintel users probably won't know what really good hardware quality and intuitive design means unless they have used a Macintosh...
backing Microsoft, who did not even have an OS to offer at that time (when they got the contract, they bought a readymade OS called 86-DOS from a company called Seattle Computer, hired its creator Tim Paterson to code for them, renamed it PC-DOS and sold it to IBM).
The ready made OS wasn't even an OS, it was actually a test program to check motherboards made for the 8080. Tim Paterson called it the QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System.
Dont you mean the 8086/8088?
Yup, I meant those, mistake... :-)
~Mayuresh
--- Mayuresh A Kathe mayuresh@vsnl.com wrote:
on 29/7/2001 11:50 AM, S. Krishnan at sri_krishnan@yahoo.com wrote:
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by
Apple,
it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched
in
1978 again by Apple,
I meant the IBM PC, since the Apple was never
commonly
referred to by the handle "PC".
That�s where you are wrong, the term PC was coined for the Apple II, because it was really a Personal Computer compared to rest of them sold in kit form, or even compared to the Apple I.
Good heavens! You mean you didn't know that it was IBM who introduced the term "PC" to the world? Till then, the Apple and its ilk were referred to either as "microcomputers" or "home computers". For your information, I've read enough old copies of Byte, Dr. Dobbs, Popular Electronics,et al (yes, I'm old enough to remember reading the launch ad of the IBM PC, featuring Charlie Chaplin), and never have I heard Apple refer to their product as a "PC". IBM introduced their product as the IBM PC. That is why even today it is called the _PC_ and the Macintosh is called a Mac but *never* a PC.
For your edification, I reproduce the following extract from an online encyclopaedia. It ought to gladden your heart since it speaks unfavourably of the PC in comparison to the Mac.
<Quote> (PC) A general-purpose single-user microcomputer designed to be operated by one person at a time.
This term and the concept has been successfully hijacked by IBM due to the huge market share of the IBM PC, despite its many obvious weaknesses when compared to other equally valid claimants to the term, e.g. the Acorn Archimedes, Amiga, Atari, Macintosh. <Unquote>
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had
to
purchase them from IBM.
You're wrong here. IBM published complete ROM
BIOS
listings for all their PC products in the
"Technical
Reference" manuals for each product. I have
myself
referred to the PC-AT Technical Reference
extensively
to understand the character generator code so that
I
could write a similar character generator routine
for
a Xenix video device driver that I was writing at
the
time. All it took to obtain this stuff was the
$15 or
so that IBM charged at that time for the Tech Ref. They stopped this practice with the release of
Micro
Channel, IBM's subsequent failed attempt at
locking
the box up and throwing the keys away.
You go round the circle and come back to the same point, I said, IBM didn't publish it straight away, you had to buy it from them. You said, it took $15 to obtain the PC-AT technical Reference.
Whats the difference??
If you can't understand this, I suggest that you refer to a dictionary. You had written that <Quote> ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM. <Unquote>. It certainly looks like you did not understand what you wrote! Your sentence implied that IBM *did not* release the ROM BIOS details except under some special circumstances. Thus, your statement of having to purchase the ROM BIOS "details" from IBM, in the context of your earlier declaration that IBM did not release the BIOS, meant that IBM restricted the distribution and sale of the BIOS to certain eligible buyers, when actually it was available to anyone - including the (then) KGB - as a part of the freely distributed Technical Reference Manual. The fact that IBM had released the ROM BIOS listing as part of a freely available book certainly gives the lie to your statement that "IBM did not release the ROM BIOS details".
It took the sheer genius of the guys at a
fledgling
company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
No way. The BIOS copy boys (Compaq, AMI, Award
and
the rest) did what are called "clean-room" implementations of the IBM PC BIOS. This means
that
they employed programmers who had "never" seen the
IBM
listings, so that IBM could not come back and
point
fingers at them for lifting code, and gave them
the
API that they had to implement, along with the
full
programming details of the X86 processor family, through Intel's very detailed manuals. Thus the non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an
excellent
example of reverse engineering and pretty sophisticated coding, were not rocket science.
What is the difference between clean room implementations and reverse engineering? Do reverse engineering people get to see a piece of code?
Again, you don't seem to understand what I had written. You are quoting out of context, and wasting your aggression on non-issues. Read on....
You are taking conflicting stands. In the earlier part of your para you say, "No way, it wasn't reverse engineering", and in the later part you say "non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering..."
You seem to have a basic comprehension problem. My "no way" was against your tall claims of "sheer genius". You have yourself acknowledged that I had stated that the work was an excellent example of reverse engineering. I stand by that. Please read the post again carefully, and maybe you'll understand what I meant. Please do not flame for nonexistent reasons and/ or causes.
Infact, "Clean-Room" implementations done by virgin programmers _should_ be considered Rocket Science because they did have to start from scratch and also be compatible with IBM.
Maybe if you were a programmer, you'd understand that while it was an excellent coding effort, it certainly wasn't rocket science.
This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible
API of
PC-DOS (yes, the very same MS-DOS of today),
rendered the
PC a very attractive backward-compatible
development
in the microcomputer world as opposed to the closed-box nature of the Apple Macintosh.
The Macintosh was never supposed to be a standard computing device, it was more targeted to be a consumer computing device created for the masses.
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing
machines
or Televisions...
Well, I do. Just take a walk down Lamington Road
and
see the number of domestic appliance service
manuals
on sale!
You do?? I never knew you were in the business of manufacturing Washing machines and television sets...
May I recommend a course in basic English language and comprehension for you? You had written that <Quote>
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing
machines
or Televisions... <Unquote>
to which I replied that I do. Please understand that opening a washing machine or television set for whatever purpose (I open them to fix them if they break) is not tantamount to manufacturing washing machines, television sets or whatever. If opening a domestic appliance and manufacturing it are the same thing in your lexicon, then I regret to inform you that your English knowledge and comprehension are pitiable, to say the least.
And incidentally, if you say that you "never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions", it makes one wonder what world you're living in. There are a lot of electronic hobbyists out there who love to play around with their TVs and assorted appliances - in fact, one of the inspirations for the early home computer builders was a book called the TV Typewriter Cookbook by Don Lancaster, published in the seventies (I own a copy), which showed how to create a terminal out of a TV set, among other things. But then, we couldn't expect you to know that, could we, since you seem to have elevated your Apple (and maybe sundry other appliances, who knows) to the level of gifts from the gods - look, worship but do not ever, ever, fiddle with - it's not a standard computing device (whatever that means to you) but a divine interpreter of heavenly messages. A latter day Erich von Daniken, perhaps?
I'm not going to reply to the rest of your flame, since it is illogical, ill-considered and without anything in the way of merit, meaning or substance. I have replied to certain of your outbursts because I wanted to set the historical record straight, after your wilful distortions of fact and flights of fancy. You seem to have taken my criticism of Apple and its products as a personal slur, and have attempted - clumsily - to retaliate, in the manner of Don Quixote, who tilted at windmills in the absence of ogres. And in doing so you've ended up with your foot in your mouth.
Please remember that violence, including misdirected barrages of words, is ever the last refuge of incompetents - don't go out of your way to prove that you are one. Get a life! Steve Jobs really doesn't care about your furious (albeit clumsy) defence of his company and products - he has better things to do.
Please don't bother to reply to this post, since I have no desire to bandy words with you and waste the bandwidth of the list.
Best regards,
Krishnan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
What started off as a decent post by Krishnan, with me appreciating it and adding/correcting a few things, has gone bad...
NOTE: I am mailing this because Krishnan's mail contained a whole lot of direct attack, I reserve the right to counter...
Would have preferred to take it off list, but since he has chosen to make an A**e out of himself (and show his true identity), I would like to extend a helping hand for him to accomplish his objective ;-)
Please read on... :-)
on 30/7/2001 9:50 PM, S. Krishnan at sri_krishnan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Mayuresh A Kathe mayuresh@vsnl.com wrote:
on 29/7/2001 11:50 AM, S. Krishnan at sri_krishnan@yahoo.com wrote:
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by Apple, it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched in 1978 again by Apple,
I meant the IBM PC, since the Apple was never commonly referred to by the handle "PC".
That?s where you are wrong, the term PC was coined for the Apple II, because it was really a Personal Computer compared to rest of them sold in kit form, or even compared to the Apple I.
Good heavens! You mean you didn't know that it was IBM who introduced the term "PC" to the world? Till then, the Apple and its ilk were referred to either as "microcomputers" or "home computers". For your information, I've read enough old copies of Byte, Dr. Dobbs, Popular Electronics,et al (yes, I'm old enough to remember reading the launch ad of the IBM PC, featuring Charlie Chaplin), and never have I heard Apple refer to their product as a "PC". IBM introduced their product as the IBM PC. That is why even today it is called the _PC_ and the Macintosh is called a Mac but *never* a PC.
IBM wasn't even knowing what a PC is till Apple and its so called ilk introduced it, a PC is a P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R, hope you knew that...
Probably you should really read-up on history...
For your edification, I reproduce the following extract from an online encyclopaedia. It ought to gladden your heart since it speaks unfavourably of the PC in comparison to the Mac.
Things don't gladden my heart just because they speak for the Mac or against the PC, But, things when perfectly and rationally presented do go on to leave their mark...
This term and the concept has been successfully hijacked by IBM
There she blows... Hijacked indeed, hmnn...
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM.
You're wrong here. IBM published complete ROM BIOS listings for all their PC products in the "Technical Reference" manuals for each product. I have All it took to obtain this stuff was the $15 or so that IBM charged at that time for the Tech Ref.
You go round the circle and come back to the same point, I said, IBM didn't publish it straight away, you had to buy it from them. You said, it took $15 to obtain the PC-AT technical Reference.
Whats the difference??
If you can't understand this, I suggest that you refer to a dictionary. You had written that <Quote> ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM. <Unquote>. It certainly looks like you did not understand what you wrote! Your sentence implied that IBM *did not* release the ROM BIOS details except under some special circumstances.
Infact, it looks like you never know what you are writing... "under some special circumstances like paying $15...", Hmnn...
My sentence implied something?? The implied part will be revisited in the next few paragraphs...
The fact that IBM had released the ROM BIOS listing as part of a freely available book certainly gives the lie to your statement that "IBM did not release the ROM BIOS details".
Whoa... OK, Krishnan, _now_ things are gonna get even more interesting... Tell me when did IBM launch the IBM PC When did they start the "so called" release of the ROM BIOS details? And after releasing the "so called" details, why did people still have to pay $15 to get the BIOS?
It took the sheer genius of the guys at a fledgling company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
No way. The BIOS copy boys (Compaq, AMI, Award and the rest) did what are called "clean-room" implementations of the IBM PC BIOS. This means that they employed programmers who had "never" seen the IBM listings, so that IBM could not come back and point fingers at them for lifting code, and gave them the API that they had to implement, along with the full programming details of the X86 processor family, through Intel's very detailed manuals. Thus the non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering and pretty sophisticated coding, were not rocket science.
What is the difference between clean room implementations and reverse engineering? Do reverse engineering people get to see a piece of code?
Again, you don't seem to understand what I had written. You are quoting out of context, and wasting your aggression on non-issues. Read on....
The real problem with you Krishnan, it seems, you yourself aren't able to understand what you are writing...
You are taking conflicting stands. In the earlier part of your para you say, "No way, it wasn't reverse engineering", and in the later part you say "non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering..."
You seem to have a basic comprehension problem. My "no way" was against your tall claims of "sheer genius". You have yourself acknowledged that I had stated that the work was an excellent example of reverse engineering. I stand by that. Please read the post again carefully, and maybe you'll understand what I meant. Please do not flame for nonexistent reasons and/ or causes.
Now comes the implied meaning part as mentioned by you earlier... Your "no way" implies that it wasn't reverse engineering...
One thing Krishnan, you are a totally confused person with tendencies towards Multiple Personality Disorder with the added problem of a non existence of any dominant personality...
Wooo, very serious case indeed...
Infact, "Clean-Room" implementations done by virgin programmers _should_ be considered Rocket Science because they did have to start from scratch and also be compatible with IBM.
Maybe if you were a programmer, you'd understand that while it was an excellent coding effort, it certainly wasn't rocket science.
Ha ha ha... Till now I used to think you are a 'joker', But, I just realised that "you" are *a* _joke_
Me not a programmer? Probably you don't know about my past...
Reverse engineering the BIOS code, was the greatest thing to ever happen to the x86+DOS platform... It was indeed rocket science...
May I recommend a course in basic English language and comprehension for you? You had written that <Quote>
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions... <Unquote>
to which I replied that I do. Please understand that opening a washing machine or television set for whatever purpose (I open them to fix them if they break) is not tantamount to manufacturing washing machines, television sets or whatever. If opening a domestic appliance and manufacturing it are the same thing in your lexicon, then I regret to inform you that your English knowledge and comprehension are pitiable, to say the least.
You are getting funnier and funnier, please refer to the context in which I said "Never knew anybody opening up..." We were discussing companies and their products not individuals and their standard computers... By opening up, I meant companies going open with their designs...
You have major perception problems... Better get yourself checked, else, as you age, you'll get even more senile than now...
I'm not going to reply to the rest of your flame,
In fact, even I would prefer not to reply to "your" stupidity, should follow the old saying... "Never argue with morons, First they'll drag you down to their own level, Then they'll beat you with eXPerience" ;-)
have replied to certain of your outbursts because I wanted to set the historical record straight, after your wilful distortions of fact and flights of fancy.
Oh, the Old Man Moz of computing, you have all the historical records we mere mortals need... (Moz appears in Phantom comics, the keeper of all stories of the Jungle of the Eastern Dark ;-)
You seem to have taken my criticism of Apple and its products as a personal slur, and have attempted - clumsily - to retaliate, in the manner of Don Quixote, who tilted at windmills in the absence of ogres. And in doing so you've ended up with your foot in your mouth.
Krishnan, It wasn't your criticism of Apple, it was rather, incorrect, and irrational presentation of the facts in an immature and disgusting way...
Foot in the mouth, hmnn... When ever I hear you talk, you always sound like someone with a Foot up the Rear...
Pathetic...
Please remember that violence, including misdirected barrages of words, is ever the last refuge of incompetents -
That¹s exactly what I wanted to tell you for a long time... "YOU ARE INCOMPETENT"
Get a life!
Life, You probably don't know what _that_ means... (after reading old copies of various magazines and storing "TV Typewriter Cookbook"... A very in-present-life person, indeed, you are... (a bit of Yoda speak ;-)
Please don't bother to reply to this post, since I have no desire to bandy words with you and waste the bandwidth of the list.
Hilarious... These last few posts of yours were absolutely hilarious, will store them for later perusal... Can be used to show somebody what being a real joker is all about...
Thanks for letting us have you as a specimen...
Warm Regards,
~Mayuresh
Sometime on Jul 30, S. Krishnan assembled some asciibets to say:
computer builders was a book called the TV Typewriter Cookbook by Don Lancaster, published in the seventies (I own a copy), which
So... who knows the origin of the term `TV Typewriter'? It's in the jargon file. http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/TV-Typewriters.html for more details.
Philip
on 31/7/2001 12:50 AM, Philip S Tellis at philip.tellis@iname.com wrote:
computer builders was a book called the TV Typewriter Cookbook by Don Lancaster, published in the seventies (I own a copy), which
So... who knows the origin of the term `TV Typewriter'? It's in the jargon file. http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/TV-Typewriters.html for more details.
Hey that was neat indeed...
Also, did anybody read the next article, the _magic_ thing?
~Mayuresh
On Saturday 28 July 2001 19:24, Krishnan wrote:
Sorry, Prem, you've got another think coming. The most important factor responsible for the spread of Microsoft operating systems was not Microsoft, but rather, IBM.
xxxxxxxxx
That should set the record straight. Should mail this to all new members.
Sometime today, premstud@vsnl.com wrote:
how many people do u think can afford macs......
I agree with you that not many people would be willing to pay for a Mac, either because they don't see enough value in it or because they simply cannot afford it. Or because they don't know about it (how many people know what a Mac is?).
and by the way seeing the success of windows worldwide, i dont think u can call that failure. remember unix was there in the market for so many years
Commercial UNIX vendors were busy making money at the time without thinking enough about advancing the technology. Selling UNIX had been reduced to just a way of making money. That's why they're now killed by either Windows or GNU/Linux. BSD was the only UNIX where the progress was happening (is still happening), and any progress was given away to AT&T, which in turn would licence it to UNIX vendors.
AT&T messed up the UNIX scene completely.
The maximum number of pc penetration in the world is thanks to windows.That is a fact.
I would say it's the other way round. DOS/Windows was lucky to be around when progress was happening on the hardware side. In the past 2 decades, there has been a lot of progress in processor and related technologies. From 386 to Pentium, et al. Nobody else was really there in the game then, so Windows got most of it. There's a lot of luck involved in this.
Even now, Windows is the `best' (as you might say) because nobody's there to challenge it. Standing against M$ is like committing suicide. Let's say you set out to develop an OS for the desktop. How many people would be willing to invest in your venture? The GNU/Linux system is the only one that is a _real_ threat to M$, because there's no stopping it.
386BSD (later, FreeBSD and forks) and Linux were the first unices for x86 in the early 1990's. DOS/Windows came before them, so it won. Of course, IBM has always been there, but I would prefer M$ to IBM any day.
I have spent 1/2 hr. today explaining how to set up Outlook Express to someone over the phone. I guess it would have been quicker if it was GNU/Linux. 1 line of fetchmailrc, start sendmail daemon and use Pine out of the box. So it's not as though Windows is easy to use. Some people just refuse to learn on their own; whether it's Windows or GNU/Linux doesn't make a difference to them.
I agree that GUIs are more approachable and easier to get started with, but CLI is easier to use in the long run.
Manish
-
jtdyahoo -
Manish Jethani -
Mayuresh A Kathe -
Philip S Tellis -
premstud＠vsnl.com -
S. Krishnan