Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: AKDejaVu on November 06, 2002, 01:59:41 PM
-
Sometimes I wonder if people remember what PCs were like in the 80's.
Mircosoft is not without its flaws, but I think people don't really realize what it brings to the table.
AKDejaVu
-
Microsofts MO early on was simple.
Find someone who has something that works.
Buy it.
Sell it.
Bill gates is a marketer. A damn good one, but hardly any kind of great creator.
-
I remeber the early days Deja,..miss them too. I liked the entreprenurial aspects of those days. Innovations came at a rampant pace and nothing was confined due to having to meet standards.
Good and bad.
Just imagine what the CPU's would look like today had the engineers been able to just move on without having to worry about backward compatibilty. In this regard, it has severely limited the progression.
It has also virtually insured near monopolies in segments of the industry.
Good and bad.
I remember when Motorola released the 68040 CPU. I happen to be standing behind 2 Intel guys at the release. One of them said, "If they get a toehold in the market, we are dead." The other guy responded, "You gonna tell the CEO that?".
Of course, Motorola didn't get a toehold and the rest is history.
Good and bad.
Over the years of my career, I have been very fortunate to be in many important junctures of change. I have seen many outstanding ideas killed because they did not fit into Microsoft's box. Not really Microsoft's fault, as much as it is the market in which we all play and compete. The ignorance of many demand that all computers behave the same.
I don't mean that to be derogatory. People know what they know about computers, and most are pretty limited in that knowledge.
Just hate seeing engineers stifled by marketing people that dictate, "It must run everything created since 1990".
Good and bad.
-
Companies are still free to write programs for any OS. Is there a specific reason they'd want to write it for Microsoft's OS?
Standardization is a good thing when you consider what we had before it.
With the rapid change in virtually every aspect of computers over the last 5 years, I fail to see how inovation has been "stiffled".
AKDejaVu
-
Standardization is fine, as long as you can leave the baggage behind Deja.
Ever looked at how much of MS code is still 16 bit? It's rather sickening.
Baggage holds back design. I know, I have been at the design end with a good idea but was told, "No, we cannot do that as it conflicts with the standard, even though it would be 300% faster".
I call that stifling and the reason I gave up on hardware/chip design.
-
That's total bias skuzzy.
Who is impacted when the backward compatability "bagage" is removed?
AKDejaVu
-
Deja,..just saying there is good and bad in either approach. For me, it ended a design career in the electronics industry as I could not stomach marketing types telling me how to design and that innovation had to be kept within the confines of the standards of the day.
Not tryin to pull yer chain here. Bias? Not sure about that. I was personally effected in a negative manner by "standardization" and miss the days when designers were free to do new concepts that did not have to fit into the box.
Did some pretty nice things during that era. Cramming 6 processors into a box and watching it all work well was really fun. That was the late 70's though.
There are downsides without standards and have I never advocated they should not be in place. Just pointing out that both sides have positives and negatives.
For me, I like the free wheeling designs. Some were pretty sweet, and I cannot help but wonder what Intel or Motorola might have done if they were not hampered by "backwards compatibility".
Through networking we have found ways to exhange data, regardless of the source machines heritage. Those are excellent standards.
When standards serve to create or propogate monopolies, we the consumer are the ones that lose. No competition forces us to accept the mediocre. That may be my only real complaint.
-
Yes Deja, I remember my first 32bit multithreaded multitasking GUI based O/S with hi res graphics, amazing sound.
Sigh I do miss my Amiga.
-
I'll give out some clues, and you guys guess who I'm describing: :)
1. His parents were rich Seattle lawyers.
2. He is a Harvard dropout after his sophomore year. (I wonder how he made it in???)
3. His parents set up a company for him to give him something to do.
4. His parents were friends with members of IBM's executive board.
5. Paid $50,000 dollars for a contractor to write an operating system, which his parents managed to land him a deal to sell it before its completion to IBM for millions.
6. He is credited with the Basic programming language, but he actually got most of it from a friend at Harvard.
7. IBM contracted his company to develop OS/2, while at the same time his company contracted DEC (Digital Equipment Corp) to write a Unix like OS, which forms the core of the most popular OS out there today.
8. There's a computing center named for him at a major university in California. What's interesting is that it runs Linux based computers. (I wonder if he knows that...)
This should be an easy one! :)
Skuzzy, I think you're spot on from a hardware standpoint. Dropping backward compatibility would certainly produce superior hardware IMO. The problem is that nobody would write software for it because their product whould have a very limited market window.
You also bring up an interesting point with Motorola. The 68040 (and in general - the whole 68000 series) were ahead of their time. The problem is (and always has been) that the best marketed product, and not the best product from a technical standpoint, will generally win out. In 1999 Intel spent $1,119,300,000 on advertising, making them number 16 in the US. I'm sure the numbers are even higher than that now.
-
Maybe its a good thing that it ended your hardware design career skuzzy. Seriously. That's coming from someone that is working in the design field.
I remember the day when the bogus restrictions weren't there skuzzy. And I know you remeber those days to.
AKDejaVu
-
PS... some of the processors that never really made much of themselves were a direct result of this belief:
There is no need for a computer in your home.
Neither Intel nor Microsoft killed those chips. Their own CEOs did.
AKDejaVu
-
Your quite correct Deja. It was a good thing for me. It was always said of me I was too entreprenurial to work for anyone. I will admit, I am never satisfied with the status quo.
At least I got to make a difference in the industry though. Very few get to make that claim. But the only reason that occurred was I also acted as the marketing person for the design. It was Adaptec's AHA-1540.
The marketing people of the day told me there was no way the product would sell as it was not compatible. Glad I didn't listen to them.
The ideas I had had in the late 70's are just now finding thier way into products today. So from my personal perspective, something really held up the advancements in technology. I pin it on maintaining compatibility, but I could be wrong.
Motorola became a non-factor in the CPU industry when everyone decided they had to be IBM compatible. Intel benefited.
It is also correct that independent, non-compatible designs could not be sustained due to the massive amount of software work required.
I will maintain that the lack of competition has forced consumers to accept the mediocre.
-
Originally posted by bloom25
In 1999 Intel spent $1,119,300,000 on advertising...
(http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9712/12/intel.dolls.ap/dolls.ap.jpg)
they must of had a good agent :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Your quite correct Deja. It was a good thing for me. It was always said of me I was too entreprenurial to work for anyone. I will admit, I am never satisfied with the status quo.
Status quo.. interesting term.
I believe a bigger issue would be understanding framework. If you were designing a complete system, that would be one thing. But when several other components rely on each other then that's another. One small change can lead to majorly adverse affects. Its difficult for people working in specialized fields to realize that. Its even more difficult for them to accept it.At least I got to make a difference in the industry though. Very few get to make that claim. But the only reason that occurred was I also acted as the marketing person for the design. It was Adaptec's AHA-1540.
The marketing people of the day told me there was no way the product would sell as it was not compatible. Glad I didn't listen to them.
Good for you. Hope you made a penny or two off of it.
Here's the odd thing.... I work on ideas that have been around for some time. Its just that few if any have a real good idea of how to impliment them. There is a common term that is used: "Integration". Basically... you have to make new ideas work with existing ones. Until the means are there to do that, no matter how good the idea, it is worthless.The ideas I had had in the late 70's are just now finding thier way into products today. So from my personal perspective, something really held up the advancements in technology. I pin it on maintaining compatibility, but I could be wrong.
I think you are wrong. If the techonology is not there to make new ideas work with old ideas, you don't arbitrarily drop the old ideas in favor of the new ones. There has to be a means to transition. If that means is not there... there is simply too much to loose.Motorola became a non-factor in the CPU industry when everyone decided they had to be IBM compatible. Intel benefited.
Motorola became a non factor because they partnered with a company that in essence put more restrictions on growth than anything Microsoft or Intel could have done.
Virtually every other microprossesor company aimed at the server market because they saw that as big buisness. Only a few survived there... and Intel had little to do with any of that.It is also correct that independent, non-compatible designs could not be sustained due to the massive amount of software work required.
Software work? No.
Try hardware conflicts. The limitations for most development revolve around many different technologies sharing the same platform. Why would anyone want one device if it rendered others useless? Come now Skuzzy... this is not that hard to understandI will maintain that the lack of competition has forced consumers to accept the mediocre.
No Skuzzy, not the mediocre. I see very little mediocracy in today's hardware. I also see unparralled levels of compatability.
The world was not done an injustice due to the delay of one technology if it means that others are rendered useless.
AKDejaVu
-
IMHO, the beauty of standardization fades and leads to a blurry area of "defending users" arguments when it comes in the hand of a private company. At the end it evolves in a sort of monopoly that is bad to the industry as a whole. Of course it does not favour the end user as well.
Cheers,
-
To an extent pepe...
But that's more along the lines of how Apple used to be. That was a true innovation limiting kind of standardization. One company doing it all.
Then there's the type of standardization that enables littlerally millions of companies to generate hardware and software that will be compatable.
Actually... despite standardization... a format where most companies manufacture hardware to meet certain guidelines... Most other OSs on the market still have problems when it comes to hardware support.
I dunno if PCs would be where they are today if the average user had to deal with OSs like LINUX.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
... I dunno if PCs would be where they are today if the average user had to deal with OSs like LINUX.
AKDejaVu
I was thinking exactly about that. :)
Cheers,
-
It's so easy to blame Microsoft for everything from technology being stiffled to the sun not rising in the morning. Sure they have their faults (quite a few) but Windows brought easy computing to the masses especially later versions from Win 98 onwards with plug and play and easier configuration. A lot of people don't like Win XP and I don't kno why when for me it's been the most stable MS OS so far outside of say their more business orientated OS NT4.
That being said a few days ago I download Red Hat Linux 8 from their web-site and installed it on my system alongside Win XP, I used to run Linux a few years ago and fancied seeing how far along it's come. Almost as user friendly, probably is just as user friendly if I could get out of the Windows frame of mind. Linux is starting to make inroads on the home market, slowly but perhaps one day MS will have a realistic rival but I suspect the day that comes Linux will be eaten in a lengthy lawsuit.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I dunno if PCs would be where they are today if the average user had to deal with OSs like LINUX.
AKDejaVu [/B]
I've been struggling to stay out of this one. :D I am weak.
What do you know about the average user, DJ? Not much, I would guess. The average PC user cannot reliably install windows 98/nt/xp; the average PC user cannot configure his box to use a different ISP. The average user buys a box with windows (some flavor) installed. And it works, sort of - if you count nightly appearances of the blue screen of death as working.
The average user would be much better off buying a PC with Linux installed. At least he would be immune to the e-mail viruses and his system would work w/o crashing.
curly
p.s. screw you, vulcan. :)
p.p.s. The motorola 68k family has never been equaled by anything produced by intel.
p.p.p.s. Intel / MS won via advertising.
-
I feel your pain Vulcan, miss my Amiga too.
-
Ah.. there you are curly... was wondering how long it would take for you to enter into this one.
The average user is not going to buy a system in peices and install an OS. That is simply a moot point. The average user is going to buy something pre-assembled.
So let's look at what should be a consideration for the average user:
1. Can he find the kind of software he needs?
2. Can he run the latest and greatest toys on it?
3. Can he hop right in and start playing?
LINUX does not suit the average users needs here Curly. Not even close. It has glaring issues with software availability and hardware compatability. Please don't try to deny this.
Apple offered everything above with one glaring exception... #2. That was eventually forced on them by the PC buisness and Microsoft.
Nobody else comes close to meeting the needs of the average user. Apple and Microsoft are it. Much of the versatility available in Apple these days can be attributed to Intel/Microsoft driving the need for it.
Curly... I think it is you that has lost touch.
AKDejaVu
-
Commodore could have owned the world. The Amiga technology was squandered. After all these years, I still don't get how they screwed that pooch.
F.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Ah.. there you are curly... was wondering how long it would take for you to enter into this one.
The average user is not going to buy a system in peices and install an OS. That is simply a moot point. The average user is going to buy something pre-assembled.
So let's look at what should be a consideration for the average user:
1. Can he find the kind of software he needs?
2. Can he run the latest and greatest toys on it?
3. Can he hop right in and start playing?
LINUX does not suit the average users needs here Curly. Not even close. It has glaring issues with software availability and hardware compatability. Please don't try to deny this.
Apple offered everything above with one glaring exception... #2. That was eventually forced on them by the PC buisness and Microsoft.
Nobody else comes close to meeting the needs of the average user. Apple and Microsoft are it. Much of the versatility available in Apple these days can be attributed to Intel/Microsoft driving the need for it.
Curly... I think it is you that has lost touch.
AKDejaVu
Not likely that I've lost touch ... I'm in daily contact with "the vast unwashed public." In contrast, and I say this with no malice intended, I doubt that you've ever been in touch with the largest fraction of computer users.
The vast majority of computer users do two things: email, browse and play hearts via their browser at yahoo. The more adventuresome will do their checkbooks/recipes/etc.
The vast majority do not buy games. To be sure, there are a large number of folks who do, but they are a tiny fraction.
The vast majority buy their computer, buy an ISP connection and away they go. Linux comes installed on a number of pre-assembled boxes.
And for pete's sake, walmart sells computers with a version of linux installed. Further, there are no hardware issues with Linux, or at least no worse than windows.
Now, if you're trying to get your dual woofer, quad midrange speakers working, yeah, that's a stretch. But again, I'm talking about good old JQ Public. I'm not talking about gamer geeks.
And if you don't know that, then you, not me, are out of touch. :)
But, what do I know? I've only installed Linux literally hundreds of times across the entire spectrum of hardware. :)
curly
-
LOL Curly!
You are quite simply wrong on too many counts here.
I don't even know where to start....
Firstly... you may want to read the thread.
Then you may want to avoid "they don't need all that..." as an argument.
Then, you may want to avoid making assumptions of who I do and don't know and what they do or don't need out of a computer.
AOL only is great until you want to slap a viewcam on it because you're friends have one. Solitary is great unless you want to get a game that has more card games on it. What? You don't need to buy film anymore if you just by a digital camera?
Most people that buy a computer grow... they need a computer that does too. I've not met anyone that didn't fit into that category to some extent... even my grandfather.
AKDejaVu
-
Bill Gates is one of the most generous people in the last 100 years, millions to Libraries around our country, and 100 million to the fight against AIDS:
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1737765
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Bill Gates is one of the most generous people in the last 100 years, millions to Libraries around our country, and 100 million to the fight against AIDS:
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1737765
Hi Rip,
You might want to read http://www.businessworldindia.com/cover1.htm
Rip.
Rip, it isn't generosity, it's just good business.
curly
-
It was deliberate. When they finally fell internal documents revealed that the CEO at the time had hated the Amiga side, and deliberately pushed through the toejam they knew would fail, like CDTV, and the Amiga 600.
Seriously though. The Amiga O/S was way ahead of its time, and if development had continued would piss all over MS O/S's. Multitasking, multithreading, underlying core very similar to Unix, the REXX scripting language, a huge amount of development in the public domain, all before Win 95 was released. If someone could have ported Workbench to Intel based systems they would have made a toejamload of money.
Unfortunately MS cannot be blamed for the death of the Amiga, that lies solely with Commodore :( . But Workbench serves as a good benchmark to show how far behind MS were and still are in what could potentially be on everyones desktop today.
Originally posted by Furious
Commodore could have owned the world. The Amiga technology was squandered. After all these years, I still don't get how they screwed that pooch.
F.
-
In response to the thread Will this blow up my machine? DX9 out. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73478)
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I would not recommend doing it, as there is no software on the market that uses DX9, and you are introducing a potentially big problem into your system for no benefit.
The claim of performance gains occurs for DX9 based software.
Hehehehe. ;)
I know what you're trying to say above (in this thread) skuzzy... I just wanted to point out that there's a side of you that also sees a bigger picture sometimes.
AKDejaVu
-
:D
Actually Deja,..what I said in the above about DX9 fits in here pretty well. I actually do see the big picture, more often than I may have displayed here.
Advancements in technology are well and good, but the source of those advancements needs to be weighed carefully with the history of the origins, when possible.
If I ever come off sounding a bit myopic,...take it for a grain of salt. I am really not myopic.
Adaptec would not have had the succes they did, had I not seen the bigger picture, and the reason those around me said it would not work, was due to them not seein the whole picture. :)