On 11/3/12 8:50 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
That is the root cause of all Window's problems. The company was run be a
"chief software architect" who technically very ignorant and lacked any
formal education in the subject. Windows still suffers because it tries
to
maintain backwards compatabilty
Hardly the "root" of all problems.. Yes, the conflation of kernel and UI
(most of Windows is really all about UI capabilities: heck it's the very
name of the product). The kernel of NT was based on the architecture of
VAX/VMS, which was fairly nice. Real multitasking, real pre-emption, real
process isolation, real dynamic run time binding. (none of which DOS had)
We have the Internet (called arpanet back then. We had email and UNIX
was
alive and well. We even had mice and track balls This was not the "dark
ages" the only real difference was the price of hardware. And in this age
gates did NOT know the difference between an OS and a command shell and he
was running Microsoft.
Don't make the mistake of confusing public statements with background and
knowledge. For all you know, Gates wanted to deliberately confuse the two
for marketing reasons.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 11/3/12 8:50 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
>
>>
>> That is the root cause of all Window's problems. The company was run be a
>> "chief software architect" who technically very ignorant and lacked any
>> formal education in the subject. Windows still suffers because it tries
>> to
>> maintain backwards compatabilty
>>
>
>
> Hardly the "root" of all problems.. Yes, the conflation of kernel and UI
> (most of Windows is really all about UI capabilities: heck it's the very
> name of the product). The kernel of NT was based on the architecture of
> VAX/VMS, which was fairly nice. Real multitasking, real pre-emption, real
> process isolation, real dynamic run time binding. (none of which DOS had)
>
There was also OS/2...
>
>
> We have the Internet (called arpanet back then. We had email and UNIX
>> was
>> alive and well. We even had mice and track balls This was not the "dark
>> ages" the only real difference was the price of hardware. And in this age
>> gates did NOT know the difference between an OS and a command shell and he
>> was running Microsoft.
>>
>>
> Don't make the mistake of confusing public statements with background and
> knowledge. For all you know, Gates wanted to deliberately confuse the two
> for marketing reasons.
>
Not to mention that in the early 80s, Microsoft was a leading supplier of
Unix, er, Xenix! Here is an interesting history:
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/Finland_period/xenix_microsoft_shortlived_love_affair_with_unix.shtml
and note the comment by John Wilson* here:
https://plus.google.com/112975947891556571931/posts/Vpmx4EBMCR3
Yes, Unix was alive and well back then and Microsoft were actively using
and selling it. The PC market was a different animal.
Orin,
Worked in Europe in the early 80s with Xenix.
*Managed the group at Logica in London that sold Xenix in Europe. He had
the misfortune that Microsoft kept poaching his staff to work in Redmond on
Windows!
