🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 May 1998 18:12:51 GMT, Bob O <osbo082@deletemeibm.net> wrote:
#On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:09:34, mstaben@My.House (Matthew S. Staben) 
#wrote:
#
#>#There are real serious implications to this.  For decades now the 
#>#process of progress in the computer world has been crash and burn.  Each
#>#project started from scratch and was built up and then the wrecking ball
#>#would come in before the next project would take over.  
#>#
#>#Trillions of dollars have been wasted in the process of creating 
#>#incompatibilities between old and new systems. 
#> 
#>I wouldn't go so far to say that.  Microsoft, yes, is guilty of attempting to
#>own the world; look at its foray into altering forever the internet protocols
#>and standards into a cryptic, Microsoft-only-knows-how, stolen infrastructure.
#
#My opinion is that Microsoft's continued dominance rests on two factors,
#both of which are necessary.  The first is they must be the standard 
#setter.  Open standards mean head to head competition and that means a 
#level playing field that a number of companies will be able to provide 
#significantly new and exciting technologies in.

I disagree with your contention (perhaps assumed?) that Microsoft is 
a "standards-setter."  Rather, they are "standards-benders."  Take
for instance, the original ^insert for "copy," which is now in all Windows
a ^C.  CUA compliance s now sacrificed for "Microsoft Compliance," a
standard designed for entirely selfish ends.

Take another "standard," the control-alt-delete.  Such a unique 
sequence of keys was originally intended, by IBM, to be used for 
a system reset.  Microsoft has decided that it will be a task manager
instead; and I'm quite sure many Windows lemmings now think that the
task manager is the "best way," when the inventors of the original
PC specification had designed in the reset strobe to be used for a soft
reset of a computer! 

No, Microsoft doesn't set standards, they destroy them.

#The second is that they need to continue to create incompatibilities.  
#If even Microsoft standards become standardized for too long, then there
#will be competition there.  Just like the Win 3.1 emulators that started
#to make appearances.  Stay too long on a standard and it will get 
#cloned.
#
#The net result of this game of tag is trillions in costs for users.

Yes, Bob.  I got the point.  You're right, it's a staggering number.  However,
how do you quantify costs to users?  I can only surmise the real cost, the
end cost, is that people will no longer be able to defend their sensibilities.
And yes, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.  And it's all Microsoft's fault.

#
#I think the next decade of improvements is going to come in the form of 
#more efficient software and system designs.  CPUs have completely 
#outstripped system design for desktop users.  With 500mhz pentiums just 
#around the corner and the industry still struggling to get a 100mhz bus 
#design working well, there would seem to be room for a lot of 
#improvement in system design.  

I don't think you're wrong, but I don't think you're right.

-- 
-----------------"m"s"t"a"b"e"n"@"p"o"b"o"x"e"s"."c"o"m"-----------------
                      "A Disciple of My Own Device"
                      
     Microsoft represents software with planned obsolesence built-in, 
     and the upgrades are often unchanged significantly, but for new 
     forms of obsolesence.  
					The Never-Ending Story.