1237e12b58be
tech



Hello Pascal - 

CA>> True but the majority won't use a compiler if they can
CA>> avoid it and I personally don't like 'office suites'. 

PS> Me neither, 't was just an example. 

Understood. 

CA>> At one time OEMs included working apps along with Windows
CA>> to help sell the machine. The costs were rolled into the
CA>> user's cost of purchasing the machine but seemed trivial
CA>> compared to a 'no OS' machine of similar quality. 

PS> Yes, which is one of the main reasons for Windows' market
PS> share today. You just get it with the computer and that's
PS> it. 

True but I doubt the personal PC would've become as popular if
people had to setup the hardware then try to install an OS and
applications before they could use the machine. Would've been a
bit too much like kit building and most people don't build kits
(not even plastic model car kits really). 

CA>> Windows OS (full installs) are quite pricey. I was a bit
CA>> shocked when I checked recently. :-\ 

PS> Most people get their Windows version as outlined above,
PS> that's why many people don't realize what the real costs
PS> can be if you, for example, want to buy Windows for
PS> installation on a machine you built yourself. No cheaper
PS> version available then... 

Only by going to Ebay or some-such and then you don't know that
what you are getting is a legal copy. :-\ 

CA>> The security problems of Windows do make you wonder if
CA>> they _ever_ tested them before releasing them into the
CA>> 'wild'. I would've expected a more thorough testing from
CA>> such a major player in the industry. They've shot
CA>> themselves in the foot bigtime. 

PS> Well, obviously, caring for security and doing really
PS> thoroughly testing costs money. Why should a business do it
PS> BEFORE problems become public? Reputation is not a problem
PS> for MS with their huge market share already being a reality. 

I have to agree that, over time, it certainly does seem to be a
form of arrogance that users have to accept a lower level of
quality like it or not. That is changing finally but will lead
to incompatibilities for awhile and more headaches for those
who are unable to install multiple OS. 

CA>> Well ... I played with my DOS and W31 setup for over 10
CA>> years to get it 'right'. 

PS> Yes, I did that to when I still ran DOS/W31, but it's a
PS> different kind of playing. In those times, it was mostly
PS> trial and error and getting to know stuff from people who
PS> had done the trail and error game before you. With Linux, I
PS> can take a look at the source code if no official docs
PS> exist, and there is no guessing involved (one still does
PS> trial and error for unimportant stuff, of course, but if
PS> it's an important matter, you can really look it up). 

I've not reviewed any Linux source code (none at all) but based
on past experiences with C source code how well it is
documented can make quite a difference. It took me over a month
to get familiar enough with the source to ATP OLR to be able to
add to it without breaking something else that was already
working. :-\ 

PS> The thing is, dealing with software shouldn't have to be
PS> trial and error. Programs running in a controlled
PS> enviroment (which is the job of an OS to provice) should
PS> always behave the same given the same inputs, and how they
PS> behave should be documented (whether in a correct manual or
PS> source doesn't matter that much). That way, you can look up
PS> what you need to do and it works. 

Having had some programming experience(s) long before
installing Windows I was very frustrated knowing that someone
somewhere HAD to have documented these oddities and Microsoft
just wasn't allowing them to release the information they
_already_had_ in-house. The trial and error thing really ticked
me off at times. Still does AMOFK when trying to 'fix' a
Windows install. 

PS> And most of "Windows tips and tricks" isn't at all like
PS> that. It's more like "try this and if this doesn't work,
PS> although it should, you can also try this, or reinstall".
PS> It has gotten better, granted. WinXP is much better than 95
PS> was. 

People are begining to follow the Microsoft 'logic' (if there
really is any) and can document Windows 'services' quite well
considering they have no source code to do it with. I am
impressed by their ingenuity and continue to be frustrated that
Microsoft holds as much close to their chest as they do. 

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

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