Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #674

Re: The Beep Function.

From	"blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
References	(5 earlier) <jephep$j4p$1@dont-email.me> <b87fa614-0cff-44d4-bc34-ef147b99ea1b@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <jes1hj$ee1$1@dont-email.me> <c3bf2579-baaf-4395-bc44-f641eb2aa477@e8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <e726h71apm4nriddun0rq5kqojbgmkus0i@4ax.com>
Subject	Re: The Beep Function.
Date	2012-01-16 06:59 +1100
Message-ID	<4f13300a$2@dnews.tpgi.com.au> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

"ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> wrote in message 
news:e726h71apm4nriddun0rq5kqojbgmkus0i@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:39:17 -0800 (PST), Peter Nolan
> <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My beef is simple. I'm deeply upset by what DaveO calls the MS eco
>>system and so annoyed that Bill Gates has a stranglehold on PC
>>software. If Windoows was solid I wouldn't feel so bad but it's not
>>and while errors are corrected in each new upgrade the new versions
>>are full of new errors in the new features that are being added on
>>and so on it goes forever meaning we the public never get a good OS.
>>This is just wrong and there is nothing we can do. Governments could
>>do a lot but Gates has many Republican friends in Washington who will
>>scupper any attempt at fixing things over there. I am only repeating
>>myself over and over again so I will stop and just add that almost
>>every techie in the world feels the same way I do about M$ that is
>>Bill Gates who is just an amateur programmer and was never anything
>>more than that. His talent is making money just like any other
>>entrepreneur who has little understanding of what it is he actually
>>sells.
>>
>
> I can understand anyone's annoyance with Microsoft's apparent
> stranglehold on PC software, but if it hadn't been Microsoft it would
> have been someone else. That fact must be understood no matter what
> else I might add below.
>
> Difficult to wrap up the history of the PC in a few words. The
> information is out there if you really wanted to know, but consider
> just a few items which you seem to be unaware of.
>
> Back in the dawn of the "PC" (actually you could include every "micro
> system" or heavy-iron in this as well, but I'll stick to the PC to
> keep it simple) every new box/chip was a new O/S, and needed new
> devices, and specific hardware. It was a bloody nightmare. Some kind
> of "standardization" was needed. But no one was truly willing to give
> or adopt anyone else's "standard" - everyone wanted to be "THE PC".
>
> There were definitely superior products/chips, but once IBM released
> its PC - the market changed. The "IBM PC" (and "clones") became king.
> [The very existence of the "IBM Clone" and how it drove the market
> choices for thousands is something ofter overlooked.]
>
> As for software. There were a ton of competing products. And of the
> major ones defined as having very large established user bases, NOT
> ONE was from Microsoft (except of course MS DOS. And ever there there
> were alternatives. Alternatives that died.).
>
> Word Processors: WordStar and WordPerfect ruled.
> But within a year of its release MS Word had the market. Why? It
> offered WYSIWYG, univeral printers, and lo and behold - A MENU! <g>
>
> Spreadsheets: VisiCalc, Lotus 123, Easy As, ...
> But within a year MS Excel beat them all. (Incidentally Excel was
> original written for the Apple.)
>
> Local Databases: dBase, Informix, PARADOX, rBase, ...
> But you guessed it ... within a year MS Access ruled.
>
> [
> Good place to note two interesting but little understood facts.
> 1) MS introduced ODBC. (Along with IBM. But IBM wanted to keep it
> proprietary. Part of the OS/2 breakdown.
> Until then programmically working with a database was an adventure.
> First you had to buy a proprietary ($$$) library, ... ODBC changed all
> that.
> 2) MS introduced "Printer Independence". Up until then every
> application had its own devices/drivers and each printer was an
> adventure.
>
> We take universal connectivity and printing for granted today.
> ]
>
> Programming languages and development platforms: Borland ruled.
> Period!
> MS released Visual Studio and it was all over with - again.
>
> Now I appreciate any real MS-Hater worth his salt, will come up with a
> ton of conspiracy theories on how MS won out. But the simple fact is
> if you look back you'll see that every single vendor that had a chance
> of competing shot themselves in the foot as much as anything MS did.
>
> Borland's demise for example reads like a sitcom.
>
> As for government conspiracy theories - you are letting your own
> prejudges blind you to one simple fact - corporations bribe and
> support those in power who can actually do something for them. The
> Republicans haven't been in power (except for a few short interludes)
> for decades. MS, Google, Sun, ... all provide massive donations to the
> Democrats and Liberal agendas.
>
> Whew! Turned out longer than I meant it to be. The story of Microsoft
> is one of opportunity, marketing, corporate greed, and business savvy.
> However it could have been someone else - if it had, I'm positive
> you'd be just has convinced of their evil. <g>
>
> I know this will change your eccentric views not one iota.

But Ralph, your final paragraph actually agrees with and encapsulates th 
majority of Peter's feelings. Great potted history by the way! I'm a 1980s 
4K man, just BEFORE he PC so know a bit about the goings on...

Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 06:15 -0800
  Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 07:11 -0800
  Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-04 15:38 +0000
  Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-04 16:16 +0000
    Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 10:15 -0800
      Re: The Beep Function. Jim Mack <no-uce-ube@mdxi.com> - 2012-01-04 13:46 -0500
        Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 08:09 -0800
      Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-04 22:24 +0000
      Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-05 08:22 +0000
      Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-05 09:21 +0000
        Re: The Beep Function. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-01-05 21:54 +1100
          Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-05 11:33 +0000
            Re: The Beep Function. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-01-06 00:20 +1100
              Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-05 17:46 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-06 14:03 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-01-08 00:43 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-07 20:53 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-01-08 17:27 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-08 09:49 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-08 08:00 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-07 22:43 +0000
      Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-05 14:13 +0000
        Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 08:26 -0800
        Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 08:04 -0800
        Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 04:41 -0800
          Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-08 11:19 +0000
        Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 04:52 -0800
          Re: The Beep Function. "Thorsten Albers" <gudea@gmx.de> - 2012-01-10 13:01 +0000
          Re: The Beep Function. Jim Mack <no-uce-ube@mdxi.com> - 2012-01-10 11:44 -0500
            Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 05:58 -0800
          Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-10 17:19 +0000
            Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 05:54 -0800
              Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-11 15:21 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-12 08:04 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-13 12:40 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-01-12 21:28 -0600
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-13 15:34 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-13 05:25 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-14 07:32 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-13 11:06 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-13 05:48 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-13 15:09 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-14 04:29 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-01-14 14:56 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-01-14 10:24 -0600
                Re: The Beep Function. Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-01-14 18:51 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 03:39 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-15 17:39 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 05:21 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-16 14:39 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 04:13 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-17 14:17 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-17 07:22 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-01-17 17:47 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-17 16:50 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-01-17 18:22 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 05:26 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-18 14:35 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-18 07:10 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-01-18 10:38 -0600
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-19 05:42 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-19 11:33 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-21 03:16 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-19 05:17 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-20 05:17 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-20 03:54 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. Jason Keats <jkeats@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> - 2012-01-20 23:40 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-21 03:20 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-21 15:20 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-21 03:23 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-20 05:11 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-01-17 18:58 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-01-17 23:13 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-18 09:12 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-01-18 09:22 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-01-18 05:39 -0600
                Re: The Beep Function. Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-01-18 13:32 +0100
                Re: The Beep Function. ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-01-15 13:30 -0600
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-16 06:59 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-16 06:55 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 06:06 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-01-13 22:34 +0000
                Re: The Beep Function. "blank" <blank@blankety.blank.com> - 2012-01-14 19:50 +1100
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-14 05:10 -0800
                Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-14 06:16 -0800
  Re: The Beep Function. "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-01-19 20:25 +0100
    Re: The Beep Function. Peter Nolan <peter.nolan40@gmail.com> - 2012-01-20 03:56 -0800

csiph-web