|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Excellent post Brent! Too few people really understand what is involved in
operating systems and software development but somehow think that even with
limited or no knowledge, should comment anyway.
In a nutshell, Bill Gates vision & Microsoft's crime was the attempt to try
and bring an element of standardization to the world of computing. Someone
had to try and do it, so why not Bill? But to attempt do so was bound to
piss-off people who think that a different standard would be better (some
variation of UNIX, BeOS, Max/OS, etc.). Just look at the constant animosity
that surfaces when PC people meet Mac people, as an example. But if we were
to leave the world to its own devices, we might never have any standard at
all. What would the automobile or stereo or TV markets/products be like
without standardization?
For example, imagine what if stereo systems weren't standard? Right now,
you can buy any CD/DVD player, cassette deck, whatever and plug them easily
and directly into ANY receiver. But were a stereo system were like a
computer, then you would have to go looking for drivers for your particular
piece of equipment and then worry about updates later on. I don't know
about you, but I would sincerely like my computer system to operate like my
stereo system. I don't personally care what the underlying OS is (Windows,
UNIX, whatever). I don't want to be concerned with the guts of the system,
I don't want to have to defrag hard drives or do Scandisks and I don't want
to constantly have to search out and apply bug fixes. I don't want to worry
about tuning parameters or resource usage. I don't want to worry about L1
or L2 cache or clock speeds. Just let me get on with my work and not worry
about the infrastructure.
I believe that this is the direction that Microsoft was trying to head in.
The means they chose to do so (expediency?) may have been a bit high-handed
in retrospect, but perhaps that is the price of such a vision? Of course,
if an OS standard were to come about, then every product produced for the OS
would have to work within the design and specifications of the OS, the same
as every stereo component must be compatible with the specifications of the
receiver. The same as everything that runs on internet is constrained by
internet standards. That doesn't preclude new, innovative developments. It
only means that such developments must, by specification be within the
constraints of the standard. This is a sacrifice for the greater good
(compatibility and range of application choice).
IBM was prosecuted by the anti-trust police in the 1980's. But anyone who
has experience with mainframe computer systems knows that IBM currently has
at least 90% of the mainframe software OS market with a product called MVS
(under various names such as OS/390, ESA, etc.), essentially the de facto
industry standard. IBM does not even sell the software, it can only be
leased on a monthly basis at very high $$ (typically hundreds of thousands
of $$ rental fee per month for the average installation). Competition in
the mainframe OS market has been virtually eliminated with hardware
mainframe competitors like Amdahl and Hitachi Data Systems (know as
plug-compatibles) forced to fully support MVS if they want a piece of the
pie. These companies have tried to push their own UNIX variations but they
have never been very successful at doing so. IBM owns about 75-80% of the
mainframe hardware market and over 90% of the mainframe OS market.
Additionally, IBM commonly makes/announces changes to the MVS OS that then
give them some lead time on delivery over the plug-compatibles (which then
take between 6 months - 1 year to deliver the same support). I've worked
for both of the aforementioned plug-compatibles in the past, so I am well
versed in these issues. Why doesn't the Justice Dept. do something about
this situation? Sadly, both plug-compatible companies have had to do
extensive lay-offs over the past few years because of IBM's monopoly control
of the mainframe market (Amdahl went from 10k to 5k employees a by about
1996). What are all you bleeding hearts going to do about this situation?
Finally, I saw a note that the new Mac OS, version 9 is now available. List
price is $99, which is $10 more than Microsoft's list price for Windows.
Judge Jackson seems to think that MS should have sold Windows releases for
$49 instead of $89. Why isn't the price that Apple is selling the OS for an
issue? Because Apple marketing has been so poor in the past that their
market share is maybe 7% of the PC universe? Do they then get a special
dispensation for ineptness? Sheese to this whole subject!
JW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of kohath
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:11 PM
To: Brent; Real Traders Forum
Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
Far easier to build a 747 jumbo jet than to design an OS that is completly
compatable with all software/hardware on the market. Far easier. Far
easier to build the Shuttle spacecraft. If the shuttle were built with the
number of programmers that build software/hardware today, the thing would
rarely, if ever, make it into outer space. Gates cannot watch over
everyones shoulder that codes/builds software/hardware. The
designers/builders of the shutlle can. You said it all when you said you
are no expert on computers. You obviously don't have the foggiest as to
what goes into making that computer you are using work. The majority of
computer users fit this bill. And I am sure that you would not care to pay
the price of a shuttle for an operating system that is bug free!
Before someone goes off not understanding what is being said here, the space
shuttle is also an extremly complex peice of machinery, the difference is,
the controls are there to make sure everything is working properly, and,
since the money being used is not theirs, and is limitless, money is of no
concern, therefore designing and building a shuttle almost bug free is
possible. "Yes, I did say Almost". Software design/coding/testing/releasing
is a tradeoff between time, price, and demand, and capability! If MS were
to work on the OS until all the bugs were out, we would never again see
another release of windows, given the millions of programmers out there who
build software to complement Windows.
There will never be a completly bug free OS, it's impossible, unless that OS
is so stripped down as to be practically useless. It is all a matter of
mathematics. Ever hear of the traveling salesman algorythm, whereby a
computer tries to determine all the different paths a salesman could take in
his daily travel, then compute the result. Or how about the algorythm to
determine which of the millions of different chess moves should be made.
Given 2 lines of code you have 1 + 1 lines of code to check for
compatability. Given 3 lines of code you have 3 + 2 + 1 lines of code to
check for compatability. As we move up to 50+ million lines of code, you
can begin to see the enormity of what you are asking for when you say you
want/expect a bug free OS for $90.
As, I hope, you can now see, it is not a big excuse, just a fact, that to
build a completly bug free OS with the capabilities of Win 95, 98, NT, is,
for all practical purposes, impossible.
Kohath
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Real Traders Forum <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; kohath
<kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
> Although I'm kind of neutral about the case against big M. I have had
reason
> not to be happy with Microsoft, but I use their products. I am no expert
on
> computers but this sounds like a big excuse. Good management is what makes
> it possible to do all of this, it's just a matter of prioritizing. Was it
> less complicated to build jet aircraft? This industry is still very young
> but when things don't make sense it's time to ask questions.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> > Computers, and computer software, are extremly complex. The reason
there
> > are so many incompatabilities between software programs and hardware.
If
> >
>
>
>
>
>
|