1237d01c16e1
c_echo



Hello Roger - 

>> SCO's latest money grabbing scheme is typical of how all of
>> them behaved at one time. They are the ones Linux users
>> should be annoyed with, not Microsoft. 

RS> I started playing with Linux in late 93' not long before
RS> the 1.0 kernel was released. At that time Windows was just
RS> starting to be taken seriously and many people, myself
RS> included, preferred DOS. If you remember that time, there
RS> was really only one book for Linux beginners, Matt Walsh's
RS> "Linux Installation and Getting Started". ( Boy, have
RS> things changed ). At that time the Linux folks hated DOS
RS> because it didn't multitask ( without desqview anyway ) and
RS> command.com was very simplistic compared to bash. 

Anyone who cared about multitasking had Desqview. I began with
DoubleDOS on an XT to do two tasks simultaneously and it worked
very well. I then went to Desqview on the AT machine. Bash is
overkill for home users and 4DOS remedied many of the
complaints about DOS batch files right about that same time
frame. 

RS> The Linux users considered OS2 to be a worthy OS, and I
RS> think common sense led many computer users in general to
RS> think that OS2 would succeed. 

I recall many thought businesses would use OS/2. Home users
didn't seem to relish the point-n-click interface a great deal. 

RS> A couple of years later MS released Win95 and unleashed 5
RS> years of BSOD hell. I think it was during those years that
RS> many people learned to hate MS. 

Microsoft did put out W95 without enough testing. They must've
perceived a threat from 'others'. AMIGA had GEM or GEOS and
APPLE had MacIntosh? There were rumors of OS9 going onto AMIGA
which would've been a 'killer' combination had it ever happened
(existing X-window clone GUI). 

RS> They thrived with an OS that crashed frequently through the
RS> sheer power of market share. They used their power in the
RS> market place to squash other, more worthy, operating
RS> systems. If you look at it from a standpoint of merit, MS
RS> did not deserve all the spoils they received. 

Microsoft was agressive in the market place but conversely the
others had 'attitude' and thought they didn't have to bother. 

RS> They made a move in the right direction with Win 2K
RS> (Windows NT 5.0), but the OS still crashes too often. From
RS> what I can tell, they took a small step backwards as far as
RS> stability when they released XP (Windows NT 5.1), though
RS> the networking and filesystem support in XP Pro is very
RS> good (too many wizards though). 

Now that I have cleaned up my W2K install it never crashes here
(many months now). I've only had the machine and OS for about 6
months but it seems to remain stable all of the time even when
apps lockup and I have to invoke taskmanager to 'kill' them. 

>> Microsoft did release Xenix AMOF through companies such as
>> Radio Shack at a much lower price than any Unix I was aware
>> of at the time. In reality it can be said that Microsoft
>> _tried_ to bring *nix to the desktop long before Tannenbaum
>> or Torvalds. 

RS> As the King of Late Night would say, "I did not know that".
RS> I have absolutely no exposure to Xenix or even Minix. 

I don't think many do know about Xenix or that Microsoft was
the source.  It failed miserably.  Average people were not up
to speed enough to make use of a Unix clone at the time.

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01