apparently their products work pretty well for some people.
there are developers who like MSDN, and consider it a good standard,
as well .NET, MSIL, MFC, VB, VS, MSSQL, WinServer, and all that.
it is not just some overpriced softwares put on a few floppies.
they have lab's, and do work on a lot of new technologies, which maybe, people who do not have a close contacts, simply do not know.
Who, Paul Allen? Paul's got more money than God. Tim Paterson? Got a check for $25k in 1980 for a re-write of CP/M, then went to work for Microsoft several times from 1981-1998, wound up a multi-millionaire. Twelve-THOUSAND Microsoft employees became millionaires, four became billionaires. I'm tired of people taking a crap on Gates without checking the facts. Try to find another company that's made so many of its employees so rich.
I didn't have much love for DOS, no security and one program crashing would reliably take out the system, requiring a reboot. I used to use MS-DOS 6 with DOSSHELL which was good because it was multitasking but it still suffered from the problem described above.
I do not boycot it, for instance I use various counters on my web pages which are PHP based.
but also I am not really very fond of it.
<? ?>
I see some merit in your arguments.
An old 100MHz box has a good deal of processing power if you stick to a command shell and no graphics.
But I am sure I do not want to go back there.
DOSSHELL didn't do true multitasking, it did timeslicing. I mean, you could still run more than one program at a time but there was no protection from the behaviour of other processes.
It was pretty neat for the time though (ignoring the fact that OS/2 and Amiga were a whole lot neater). I found it more useful in many circumstances than Windows 3.1.
Windows' Windowing system isn't even that great. I find it annoying that the graphical manager doesn't support wildcards, i.e. I can't type 'F:\home\alun\Documents\*.PDF' into the address bar to display all PDFs. A decent GUI file manage should be able to perform such a basic task.
You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.
The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.
I see some merit in your arguments.
An old 100MHz box has a good deal of processing power if you stick to a command shell and no graphics.
But I am sure I do not want to go back there.
That's only available when in the Explorer Windows with the folders listed on the left hand side of the screen.Right click on the folder and select 'Search', enter your wildcards there.
That's only available when in the Explorer Windows with the folders listed on the left hand side of the screen.
You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.
The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.
You need to consider that Amiga OS predated all Intel GUI systems, multi-tasked far better than even the latest PC's today, yet ran on 512Kb of memory at only 8MHz or so.
The 68000 chip was far more advanced than the Intel processors.
<sigh> Sorry just having a tender moment over my favourite home computer.
When it first came out there was a bit of school room banter from people who had Atari ST's who claimed that the Amiga was slower than the ST - yeah right, the ST ran at 7.5Mhz and I think the Amiga ran at 7.12Mhz (whoopdidooo!)
<sigh> Sorry just having a tender moment over my favourite home computer.
When it first came out there was a bit of school room banter from people who had Atari ST's who claimed that the Amiga was slower than the ST - yeah right, the ST ran at 7.5Mhz and I think the Amiga ran at 7.12Mhz (whoopdidooo!)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?