Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #684212 > unrolled thread

M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 15:08 +0000
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-17 11:39 -0500
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 17:20 +0000
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 15:55 -0500
        Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 22:05 +0000
    Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-17 21:46 +0000
      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 22:49 +0000
      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:08 +0000
        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 18:35 -0500
        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-17 23:37 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:52 +0000
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-18 01:00 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 02:19 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 09:27 +0000
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 10:04 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:45 -0600
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:20 -0500
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:21 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-01-18 18:04 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 00:05 +0000
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 13:38 -0600
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-18 16:03 -0500
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:52 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 21:57 -0500
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-18 04:34 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 06:50 +0000
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 10:58 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 14:01 -0600
                    Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 21:02 +0000
                      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:05 -0600
                        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:27 -0600
                        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-19 00:19 +0000
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 18:34 -0600
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 21:12 -0500
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 04:35 +0000
                            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 05:58 -0500
                              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-19 11:02 -0600
                                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 12:18 -0500
                              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 19:32 +0000
                                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 14:37 -0500
                                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-20 01:48 +0000
                      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:16 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:33 -0500
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-18 13:57 -0500
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 18:31 -0500
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 09:39 +0000
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 20:00 -0600
        Re: PhysFatFuck's Supreme Delusion DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:37 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#684285 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/17/25 6:05 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> Nope.  There is no defense.  Microslop Excel is FUBAR.
> It's only because none of its idiot adherents, like Tyrone,
> have a use for dates before 1901


Obviously the likes of "DFS" working for MS are the culprit.

But the way Excel should be used, and is used by those who have a 
serious use for that type of tool, will avoid such blunders anyway. 
Manipulating dates is always a sensitive work. Like measuring size. 
Temperature, etc., and in serious work one does not leave it to anyone 
else. You _code_ it for your own use.

Parts of Excel are designed for secretaries' use, so a secretary type of 
sub-code-monkey like "DFS" must've been given the task to create. And 
blunders won't even discovered by secretaries or "DFS" lamebrained 
individuals, thy never encounter the flops that some other "DFS" 
airheads have left behind in Excel.

Excel is the best product MS has had. From the beginning, I think, it 
was the Excel that forced businesses to grudgingly accept Windows on 
their computers. The reasons for that are also obvious. MS Word doesn't 
even come close. Businesses need something that solves and provides for 
their everyday needs. Letters and communications are just before and 
after the fact activities. The heart of it is done by using Excel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684291 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/2025 2:38 PM, SandChimp wrote:

> Parts of Excel are designed for secretaries' use, so a secretary type of 
> sub-code-monkey like "DFS" must've been given the task to create. And 
> blunders won't even discovered by secretaries or "DFS" lamebrained 
> individuals, thy never encounter the flops that some other "DFS" 
> airheads have left behind in Excel.


Post some of your Excel sheets containing your VBA shit-code so I can 
show you how to improve EVERYTHING.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684314 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 16:03:33 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Post some of your Excel sheets containing your VBA shit-code so I can 
> show you how to improve EVERYTHING.

“Improving” VBA ... isn’t that like trying to make a soapbox cart run a 
little faster? Ultimately you’re limited by the fact that ... it’s still a 
soapbox cart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684263 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/17/25 6:37 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
>> machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
>> “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
>> first place.
> 
> It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3.  Multiplan (and
> later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.

Huh.  That's a TIL for me.


> This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
> in 1979 on the Apple II.  Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
> 1983.

Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was 
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or 
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it 
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

> BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
> probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the 
limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special 
rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the 
compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684264 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Jan 17, 2025 at 9:57:41 PM EST, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote:

> On 1/17/25 6:37 PM, Tyrone wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
>>>> yourself.
>>> 
>>> Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
>>> machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
>>> “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
>>> first place.
>> 
>> It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3.  Multiplan (and
>> later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.
> 
> Huh.  That's a TIL for me.

Yep. It was for Farley Fucktard too. You can tell by the way he is now
freaking out, posting pics from his personal gay porn collection in a childish
attempt to insult me for showing how clueless he is.  Again.    

>> This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
>> in 1979 on the Apple II.  Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
>> 1983.
> 
> Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
> motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
> just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
> was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

VisiCalc required only 32K in the Apple II. 32K. Which meant that the DOS,
Visicalc and your spreadsheet had to fit in 32K. 

Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority. No one is
going to go over and above to handle all scenarios with 32K to work with. 

>> BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
>> probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
> 
> Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the
> limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special
> rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the
> compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.

True. But since most businesses - then and now - are not concerned with doing
math on dates in 1900, there is no need to worry about that. And if a business
IS concerned with 1900 dates, they have already worked around this issue
decades ago in VisiCalc and/or Lotus 1-2-3.

That work around still works today in Excel. And as time goes by, this issue
becomes less and less relevant to anyone.   

Except probably to Farley Fucktard.  In 6 months he will post this big
"discovery" again. Because he is that stupid.  And childish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684267 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:34:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.

Then why allow them at all?

The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly 
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684271 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 06:50:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:34:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.
> 
> Then why allow them at all?
> 
> The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly 
> -- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

If nothing else, this case illustrates that with Microsoft, as with all
commercial software, talented programmers are not making the design decisions.
Rather it is the MBAs who seek to maximize sales that are in charge.  The end
result, over time, is software that is tailored to the lowest common denominator
(i.e. junk).





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684286 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 4:58 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 06:50:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 04:34:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.
>>
>> Then why allow them at all?
>>
>> The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
>> -- and elegantly -- solved the problem.
> 
> If nothing else, this case illustrates that with Microsoft, as with all
> commercial software, talented programmers are not making the design decisions.
> Rather it is the MBAs who seek to maximize sales that are in charge.  The end
> result, over time, is software that is tailored to the lowest common denominator
> (i.e. junk).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Yes.

And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not 
an R&D institution.

The R&D juice you want to draw from their product does not warrant the 
price they're asking for it. See, I'm again saying the same damn thing 
here. The actual use you get from a car does not warrant the $80k that 
sellers are asking you to pay. You can get that use by paying $1500 for 
a second hand one.

The same thing for a computer. Are they selling it, and that's whatever 
damn computer it happens to be, at a price above $80? They're ripping 
you off. Cause the R&D use you can get from it, the real use, doesn't 
warrant paying anything above it.

Same for Excel or Windows or any product MS has.

I have never bought something from them, new. For same reasons. I won't 
buy a car above $2000 if you hold a shotgun to my head. Cause doing so 
means I'm either Sheep or a crook treating others the same way, and I am 
not Sheep, nor a crook.

The only new MS product that fell in my hands was given to me free of 
charge for something I did for MS, and even that, I sold it a few days 
later dirt cheap and got rid of it. It was a Windows 2000 CD months 
before it became available for public.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684290 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:01:45 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:

> 
> And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not 
> an R&D institution.
> 

If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."

The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
on the desktop.

From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
rivals.

But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?

Nope.  And that Microslop's only advantage.



-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684296 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 3:02 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:01:45 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
>>
>> And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
>> an R&D institution.
>>
> 
> If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
> early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."
> 
> The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
> and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
> on the desktop.
> 
>  From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
> organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
> Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
> rivals.
> 
> But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?
> 
> Nope.  And that Microslop's only advantage.
> 
> 
> 


I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied 
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time 
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new 
tech realities.

But, when there are Capones around you, and yes they're all around you, 
you can begin outsmarting them. Capones feed on the Sheep. If you're not 
Sheep, you can outsmart them cause a "Capone" by definition has funny 
weak points too. Weak points that healthy human beings don't have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684300 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 4:05 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 1/18/25 3:02 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:01:45 -0600, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
>>> an R&D institution.
>>>
>>
>> If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
>> early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."
>>
>> The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
>> and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
>> on the desktop.
>>
>>  From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
>> organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
>> Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
>> rivals.
>>
>> But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?
>>
>> Nope.  And that Microslop's only advantage.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied 
> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time 
> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new 
> tech realities.
> 
> But, when there are Capones around you, and yes they're all around you, 
> you can begin outsmarting them. Capones feed on the Sheep. If you're not 
> Sheep, you can outsmart them cause a "Capone" by definition has funny 
> weak points too. Weak points that healthy human beings don't have.
> 
> 



And that's, ... Begin with not buying their products but at the same 
time using them! Never buy them new, and never pay for them more than in 
pennies.

Do the same with cars :)

And computers, of course.

And food!

Oh, all sorts of Capones.

Even choose the gas station that does not sell gas belonging to Capones 
you dislike. There are gas stations whose owners are in Mexico. There 
are a few whose owners are Russians!

Starting November of 2023 I stopped buying products made in Israel. You 
can detect them by the special form their barcodes have to be.

Opportunities are almost endless to silently fuck the Capones. Be 
smarter, and it all ads up.

When Reagan called Iranians, "Barbarians", I convinced two bright 
Iranian physicists who had just graduated, to return to Iran instead of 
staying here serving this government. Almost all physics jobs are 
government jobs in this country.

They've both been fruitfully employed in Iran, one in the nuclear 
industry and one in education, and both recently retired.

That's how you deal with Capones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684312 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak" <physfitfreak@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
> tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.  

Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
$25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim.  86-DOS was a port of CP/M
(Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.

At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language.  Bill Gates
quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point. 

This is all well known history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684313 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 6:19 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak" <physfitfreak@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
>> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
>> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
>> tech realities.
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
> $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim.  86-DOS was a port of CP/M
> (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.
> 
> At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
> CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
> opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
> because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language.  Bill Gates
> quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
> 
> This is all well known history.



Had Tim Paterson "BOUGHT" 86-DOS from Kildall?..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684321 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 7:19 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak" <physfitfreak@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
>> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
>> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
>> tech realities.
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
> $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim.  86-DOS was a port of CP/M
> (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.
> 
> At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
> CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
> opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
> because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language.  Bill Gates
> quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
> 
> This is all well known history.

Yep, they've made documentaries and even made-for-TV movies about it.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative
KDE supporting member
ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684323 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:19:14 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"
> <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
>> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
>> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
>> new tech realities.
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
> for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim.  86-DOS was a port of
> CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
> became MS-DOS.
> 
> At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
> Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to
> recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
> Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
> programming language.  Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had
> NOTHING at that point.
> 
> This is all well known history.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3/


It has a link to even a longer article. My Luddite phase lasted until '93 
so I went from MSDOS to Windows 3.1 without the intervening agony. Even 
3.1 needed the Trumpet Winsock shareware if you expected to connect to 
anytihng.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684327 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 11:35 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:19:14 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"
>> <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
>>> their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
>>> successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
>>> new tech realities.
>>
>> Absolute nonsense.
>>
>> Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
>> for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim.  86-DOS was a port of
>> CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
>> became MS-DOS.
>>
>> At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
>> Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to
>> recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
>> Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
>> programming language.  Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had
>> NOTHING at that point.
>>
>> This is all well known history.
> 
> https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3/
> 
> 
> It has a link to even a longer article. My Luddite phase lasted until '93
> so I went from MSDOS to Windows 3.1 without the intervening agony. Even
> 3.1 needed the Trumpet Winsock shareware if you expected to connect to
> anytihng.

I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in 
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using 
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet 
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative
KDE supporting member
ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684334 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

CrudeSausage wrote:

>You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe, 
>but that's about it.

Eww.  Hyperterminal.  I hated that program.  Thank goodness for
Teraterm, which we use constantly to this day, at work.

-- 
"[chrisv] on the other hand predicted tablets to fail dismally."  -
Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684336 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/19/25 12:02 PM, chrisv wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe,
>> but that's about it.
> 
> Eww.  Hyperterminal.  I hated that program.  Thank goodness for
> Teraterm, which we use constantly to this day, at work.

I recall applying for a job back in 2000 which required understanding of 
Windows and computers. A guy from high school also applied and we both 
answered differently for the question "Can HyperTerminal be used to 
connect to the Internet?" He answered "no" whereas I brought up the 
point that it can indeed be used to connect to the Internet assuming 
that the Internet account you used provided access to a shell account, 
something autoroute.net did back then. They just told me that I was 
wrong even though it was indeed correct. He too thought that I was wrong 
and acted like he was some sort of genius and would have already known 
that if it were true.

I later proved it to them but, as usual, never got an apology.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative
KDE supporting member
ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684341 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:58:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
> to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
> HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
> service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors of 
Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine itself was 
interesting.

https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/

I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world wasn't 
ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said "You've got 
to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and took it with 
me. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684343 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/19/25 2:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 05:58:00 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
>> to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
>> HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
>> service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.
> 
> Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors of
> Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine itself was
> interesting.
> 
> https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/
> 
> I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world wasn't
> ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said "You've got
> to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and took it with
> me.

Which would be something like $3,000 in today's money. It looks pretty 
nice, but I imagine that display didn't last long.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative
KDE supporting member
ASUS Zephyrus GA401QM on Manjaro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web