Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9 (Read 15585 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #75
Quote
LOL. And where do you think Windows users would have ever run into Latex. Or any other typesetting program for that matter. Mac'ers and *NIX'ers are about the only people who use such programs outside of a business environment.

LOL. wrong.

I'm a windows user and use LaTeX on a regular basis for typesetting essays etc for University. (ha, that's even outside of a business environment, so there.  )

 


oh yeah, I'm another CompSci student using MikTeX.. surprised, anyone? 
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #76
I actually believe evil (not Evil) is the correct term for Microsoft. They achieved a monopoly through clever marketing, obscure licensing and nasty lawyers.

A few examples:

Around 1980: Intel and IBM wanted to make cleap computers that ordinary people could afford. Intel had the new 8086 (or was it 8088) chip. IBM had the facilities to make hardware. Microsoft had a very young CEO called Bill Gates and little more. Microsoft wanted to make software for the Intel/IBM venture. But Intel/IBM did not have an operating system to run the programs. The program was stalled. Mr. Gates got this idea that he could just find an operating system out there and sell it to Intel/IBM. So he found QDDOS - Quick and Dirty Disk Operating System and made a license deal with the programmer. He then presented the operating system to IBM/Intel and suddenly there was a go. Two years later the OS was a success. Bill Gates wanted it all for himself and proceeded to sue the programmer for abusing the contract. He won.

Ten years later IBM has released their own OS called OS/2. It is superior to DOS, but it does not run DOS programs. The market would not embrace OS/2. So IBM and MS teamed up to create OS/3. Mr. Gates knew very well that he could repeat the sue-QDDOS technique on IBM. They were SO MUCH BIGGER at the time. So MS they assigned a small team of rather dull programmers to work together with IBM creating OS/3. They also assigned a large team of really sharp programmers to grab the best of OS/2 and create WinNT. Around a year before the release of WinNT, Microsoft withdrew from the OS/3 program, leaving IBM at least two years behind. Then MS releases WinNT and world domination begins.

Around 1995-1996, most major programs were avalible in a windows version. This included WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3/Quattro Pro. Those programs had a 90% marketshare in their DOS days. But the windows versions sucked. And they sucked a lot. In fact noone but Microsoft were able to write proper programs for windows. Word95 and Excel95 had little problems conquering the customers.
When it was too late, it was discovered that Microsoft kept part of the windows documentation a secret. They just rotated programmers on Windows with programmers on Office. Soon all MS employees knew the secrets of windows, but noone else knew. The American government sued MS and won. MS were forbiddel to rotate programmers. Windows programmers were not allowed to make anything but windows. The office programmers was to be given the same documentation as everyone else. Microsoft really doesn't care - the other software companies are at least two years behind.

I am going to stop now. There is plenty of material left, but this is hardly the proper forum for this sort of stories.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #77
I wasn't clear it seems. I'm not arguing about the sound quality of the codec, I'm being pissed off of this kiddie-like MS bashing going on here all the time. "M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!" Please tell me people arguing like that are not stupid. >:/

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #78
Quote
I wasn't clear it seems. I'm not arguing about the sound quality of the codec, I'm being pissed off of this kiddie-like MS bashing going on here all the time. "M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!" Please tell me people arguing like that are not stupid. >:/

Hmm, in my opinion there hasn't been lots of "M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!"-arguments in this thread, instead people have really explained their point of views.

If you see every message which is not praising Microsoft as "kiddie-like MS bashing M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!", then I think it's time for you to look into a mirror, and possibly read the arguments again...
Juha Laaksonheimo

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #79
Quote
I wasn't clear it seems. I'm not arguing about the sound quality of the codec, I'm being pissed off of this kiddie-like MS bashing going on here all the time. "M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!" Please tell me people arguing like that are not stupid. >:/

There are of course the issues of the sound quailty with WMA but many people don't want MS to get a foothold in this sector because of monopoly problems which in-turn effect the technical side.  Encoding your own stuff will always be ok as you can select whatever you want but it's when people/organisations interact, problems show up.  Evil is too strong a word them, illegal, law-breaking, stupid or deliberately awkward are more appropriate.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #80
Quote
to call them "evil" is childish and useless. you don't like what m$ does? do something about it. don't go bitching about their business practices in an audio forum.

yes, i understand enough economics to know that the purpose of government intervention (in the economy and, at least, in the US) is to fix capitalism when it breaks. yes, i realize that monopoly == broken capitalism. what i'm saying is that if you set up a society in which money is as important as it is here it should seem only too natural for this sort of thing to happen. if you're going to encourage people to make and abuse monopolies, then you shouldn't get all huffy when it happens (this being a somewhat liberal use of the word "you").

I agree that calling them evil is unless but the term conveys the setiment of a great number of people.  You cannot expect a question like the one posed...

Quote
Outside of pure sound quality issues... why else would you suggest against someone (a person or company) using Microsoft Windows Media Format for encoding their digital audio library


and not cover the implications of a company which has proven to use a monopoly to acquire another monopoly in other markets.  BTW What makes you think that extortionate profits is what I would call successful, I just said "I'm not sure I would class that as successful".  Several companies have monopolies in their sectors but don't abuse that power in the same way.

Someone has asked a question about a specific audio format from a specific company, I think an audio forum is as appropriate as any don't you.

A linux/ogg vorbis user.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #81
Quote
Quote
LOL. And where do you think Windows users would have ever run into Latex. Or any other typesetting program for that matter. Mac'ers and *NIX'ers are about the only people who

Hehe, I use w2k and wouldn't dream of using anything but LaTeX for my word processing needs . MikTeX (LaTeX2e distribution) works perfectly in Windows, especially when used with xemacs or JEdit (multiplatform text editors).

I was not aware there was a version for Windows. But you still have to considder yourself quite the exception. I will have to do a search for it and install it along side emacs for windows.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #82
Quote
Around 1980: Intel and IBM wanted to make cleap computers that ordinary people could afford. Intel had the new 8086 (or was it 8088) chip. IBM had the facilities to make hardware. Microsoft had a very young CEO called Bill Gates and little more. Microsoft wanted to make software for the Intel/IBM venture. But Intel/IBM did not have an operating system to run the programs. The program was stalled. Mr. Gates got this idea that he could just find an operating system out there and sell it to Intel/IBM. So he found QDDOS - Quick and Dirty Disk Operating System and made a license deal with the programmer. He then presented the operating system to IBM/Intel and suddenly there was a go. Two years later the OS was a success. Bill Gates wanted it all for himself and proceeded to sue the programmer for abusing the contract. He won.


Bill's mother was working as a secratary for one of the guys high up. She kept mentioning in passing that William had written a spiffy punch tape version of basic for the Altair. And that he and his computer friends were working on an operating system. She forgot to mention or just did not know that they had not even started. She got William and his balding overstuffed ignorant gorilla like friend Steve(you guessed it) Balmer a meeting with the execs to sell their product. At that meeting Gates and Balmer lied their asses off. They had no code and they did not know anyone who did, and they did not have the skill to write it. And IBM fell for it! IBM bought a product that did not exist for $100,000 IIRC. After making off with the loot Gates and Balmer had their first intelligent thought of the day. "Oh shit! We have all this money and we don't have a product to give them. We could get in trouble for this. It's stealing!" Bill and Balmer then ran around like chickens with their heads cut off and did everything except crap their pants till they found a friend who knew a guy who might be able to help them. He told them where to find the guy who wrote QDDOS for the trash-80s and they bought it off him. As the name implied it was quick and dirty and microsoft never fixed that in the whole time they pushed the product. In fact it only got even more dirty with lots of quick half arse hacks.

Quote
Ten years later IBM has released their own OS called OS/2. It is superior to DOS, but it does not run DOS programs.


I ran DOS programs under OS/2. In fact DOS programs run beter under OS/2 Warp than they did under the DOS or Windows 3.11/95 they were written for. You probably remember all to well trying to play games only to find out to much of your 640k of program RAM was taken up with Microsoft hacks and getting an out of memory error. It did not happen under OS/2

Quote
The market would not embrace OS/2.


Wrong. It was Microsoft that would not embrace OS/2. OS/2 = competition and competition = evil to Microsoft. By that time more people than IBM were making intel based PCs. And since Microsoft already had a monopoly at the time they threatened to price gouge IBM if they continued to push OS/2 to the same marked MS DOS and Windows was aimed at. IBM slipped up and decided that rather than take a risk and try to market their new unknown and massively better OS that they would just play it safe and capitulate to the tyrant Bill's wishes. The market was actually warming up to it before Bill orderd OS/2 burried in a shallow grave.

Quote
So IBM and MS teamed up to create OS/3. Mr. Gates knew very well that he could repeat the sue-QDDOS technique on IBM. They were SO MUCH BIGGER at the time. So MS they assigned a small team of rather dull programmers to work together with IBM creating OS/3. They also assigned a large team of really sharp programmers to grab the best of OS/2 and create WinNT. Around a year before the release of WinNT, Microsoft withdrew from the OS/3 program, leaving IBM at least two years behind. Then MS releases WinNT and world domination begins.


Actually it was Lan Manager and not NT at that point. And the monopoly had kicked in long before then. Lan Manager and NT were just the first fruits of the monopoly.

Quote
Around 1995-1996, most major programs were avalible in a windows version. This included WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3/Quattro Pro. Those programs had a 90% marketshare in their DOS days. But the windows versions sucked. And they sucked a lot.


Because Microsoft obscured much of their API and did many things to purposefully break those programs.

Quote
In fact noone but Microsoft were able to write proper programs for windows. Word95 and Excel95 had little problems conquering the customers. When it was too late, it was discovered that Microsoft kept part of the windows documentation a secret. They just rotated programmers on Windows with programmers on Office. Soon all MS employees knew the secrets of windows, but noone else knew. The American government sued MS and won. MS were forbiddel to rotate programmers. Windows programmers were not allowed to make anything but windows. The office programmers was to be given the same documentation as everyone else. Microsoft really doesn't care - the other software companies are at least two years behind.

I am going to stop now. There is plenty of material left, but this is hardly the proper forum for this sort of stories.


Hehehe true. You have only begun to scratch the surface.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #83
Quote
Quote
Quote
LOL. And where do you think Windows users would have ever run into Latex. Or any other typesetting program for that matter. Mac'ers and *NIX'ers are about the only people who

Hehe, I use w2k and wouldn't dream of using anything but LaTeX for my word processing needs . MikTeX (LaTeX2e distribution) works perfectly in Windows, especially when used with xemacs or JEdit (multiplatform text editors).

I was not aware there was a version for Windows. But you still have to considder yourself quite the exception. I will have to do a search for it and install it along side emacs for windows.

not true. it has been my experience that most technical fields (barring bio and chem) use some form of LaTeX. especially physcists and mathematicians. i don't have very many nice things to say about Pomona's math department, but they do insist that all their students write their senior theses in LaTeX.

btw, i use miktex for most everything. unless i'm told to do it in word. which happens all too often...

edit: damn grammar

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #84
Quote
not true. it has been my experience that most technical fields (barring bio and chem) use some form of LaTeX. especially physcists and mathematicians. i don't have very many nice things to say about Pomona's math department, but they do insist that all they're students write their senior thesis in LaTeX.

btw, i use miktex for most everything. unless i'm told to do it in word. which happens all too often...

It depends very much on the technical field. I suppose there are a large number of people in technical fileds using it. But that does fall more on the professional side of things and not the average home user. Would you honestly classify it as a large number of people even bordering on a majority? Or on the scope of the larger issue an exception or minority.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #85
hmm... i will concede that it's probably a professional thing, though i think that defining professors and other researchers at universities as "professionals" is ... uncomfortable to me. another problem of definition here that i don't really want to get into.

i'm not sure about whether it's exception or a majority. there are only about 25 or so physics majors at my college (note: not pomona) per class (e.g. sophmore class), so i don't think it's a representative sample. furthermore, i don't know what they use anyway. but the sample tech-report template is distributed as both a word document and a LaTeX source/dvi file. there are [edit: ok... some] tex websites out there for students detailing how to install LaTeX, AUCTeX, Emacs, ghostscript and whatnot on pc computers (mostly engineering departments, it would seem). i also note the enormous numbers of linux users that *don't* use LaTeX, and instead wordprocess on abiword or openoffice or whatever. that's what lead me to believe (so i suppose "in my experience" is more than a little misleading) that it's more of an occupational decision than one of "what os do i use?"

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #86
Quote
I wasn't clear it seems. I'm not arguing about the sound quality of the codec, I'm being pissed off of this kiddie-like MS bashing going on here all the time. "M$ 1z 3\/1L wooooo!" Please tell me people arguing like that are not stupid. >:/

Tom I do think you are over reacting. This is the only thread I have seen something similar to what you describe. And it was only once in that thread. And as I understood SK1 it was more of a jest than a serious self defining statement on his views.

I must say you thuroughly freaked at the pesseimism expressed in the palladium related thread as well. And there was not a single "M$ 0\/\/|\|5 j00" type message in the thread IIRC. You always seem to go balistic when anyone implies that Microsoft is less than honest.(Guess what, they are much less than honest) What did you expect people to do there? Get up on their desks, dance, and sing out the praises of paladium and how it stands to restrict their lifestyle and habbits? Or in this instance how WMA and related technologies stand to restrict their lifestyle, habbits, and opportunities?

Not that you could not have some valid views on the subject but you have yet to put any into words. Calm down take off your Microsoft Goggles™ and take the time to do so.

___________________________________________
Microsoft Goggles - Similar to beer goggles. But instead of making ugly girls pretty it turns all comments anti-Microsoft into childish leet-speak gibberish. On top of that they have the added effect of changing any Microsoft neautral statements into baseless anti-Microsoft proppaganda. In the rare case you run into pro-Microsoft comments barring a BSOD they will all be reformatted and spell checked by MS Word for goggles. At which point your field of vision will freeze and you will have to reboot your goggles.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #87
Quote
i also note the enormous numbers of linux users that *don't* use LaTeX, and instead wordprocess on abiword or openoffice or whatever. that's what lead me to believe (so i suppose "in my experience" is more than a little misleading) that it's more of an occupational decision than one of "what os do i use?"

My experience may be different but it was through BSD and Linux that I was introduced  to Latex. I would agree that alot of linux users don't use it. But it is a common thing to see on a *NIX distro so I figured they would have a better chance at knowing about it than the average Windows users.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #88
Of course the best one MS pulled was the software shelf rule they imposed.  If a storefront wanted to sell MS products and supporting 3rd party products, they had to agree to not offer any 3rd party products for other OS's except Apple.  (They couldn't ban ALL OS's, else they would violate monopoly practice law.)

This is the reason why there was WordPerfect for Windows and MacOS, but you never saw WordPerfect for OS/2 on the shelf, even tho the product did indeed exist.  You had to order it from a site like bigblue.com.
In Case Of Bose, Break Glass
Flac yuo in teh ASIO!

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #89
Quote
...blah blah ... don't waste precious space ...

I am not claiming my history to be perfect, but I am fairly sure that Steve Ballmer joined Microsoft in 1986. It was Paul Allen who started Microsoft together with Bill Gates.

I did not try OS/2 before 1994. It did not run my 1994 programs properly. I don't remember which programs I used. I do however remember that OS/2 formatted the wrong harddrive (it was incompatible with my high-speed caching ide mode 2 hard disk controller from Tekram ... LOL). After 1994 I used NT3.1...

Before 1994 I believe I used DR-DOS 5.0 -- a task swicthing DOS...

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #90
Quote
I am not claiming my history to be perfect, but I am fairly sure that Steve Ballmer joined Microsoft in 1986. It was Paul Allen who started Microsoft together with Bill Gates.


I believe you are correct. Paul Allen and Bill Gates did indeed found Microsoft. And Steve Balmer did not join Microsoft till the mid 90s. But it was Balmer and Gates that pitched Microsoft's fictional DOS to IBM IIRC. And it was Allen who pulled their bacon out of the fire by pointing them to QDDOS IIRC. Balmer may only be a recent employee but he was a long time friend and over all computer know nothing.

Quote
I did not try OS/2 before 1994. It did not run my 1994 programs properly. I don't remember which programs I used. I do however remember that OS/2 formatted the wrong harddrive (it was incompatible with my high-speed caching ide mode 2 hard disk controller from Tekram ... LOL). After 1994 I used NT3.1...


Well that is not saying to much. There are DOS programs that do not run well under DOS let alone OS/2.  And hardware compatability, well back then that was always a problem.

Quote
Before 1994 I believe I used DR-DOS 5.0 -- a task swicthing DOS...


Still got a 286 around here with DR-DOS on it. Version 2 or 3. It had one of those spiffy 256 color displays and those new fangled 3 1/2 inch disk thingys.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #91
Quote
I ran DOS programs under OS/2. In fact DOS programs run beter under OS/2 Warp than they did under the DOS or Windows 3.11/95 they were written for. You probably remember all to well trying to play games only to find out to much of your 640k of program RAM was taken up with Microsoft hacks and getting an out of memory error. It did not happen under OS/2.

I bought a copy of "OS/2 for Windows" way back when, and was a beta tester for OS/2 Warp.  Problem is, it was a serious memory hog for its time, and required substantially more than the average computer had.  It ran slower than molasses on my PC, and so I ditched it and just waited for Win95 (which I remember really knocked the wind out of the sails of OS/2 fanatics on Usenet, although they continued to harp on the old "sits on top of DOS" argument).

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #92
Quote
Quote
I ran DOS programs under OS/2. In fact DOS programs run beter under OS/2 Warp than they did under the DOS or Windows 3.11/95 they were written for. You probably remember all to well trying to play games only to find out to much of your 640k of program RAM was taken up with Microsoft hacks and getting an out of memory error. It did not happen under OS/2.

I bought a copy of "OS/2 for Windows" way back when, and was a beta tester for OS/2 Warp.  Problem is, it was a serious memory hog for its time, and required substantially more than the average computer had.  It ran slower than molasses on my PC, and so I ditched it and just waited for Win95.

Yeah. OS/2 used RAM in a whole new way. If it had been allowed to develop as OS/2 we would be using it today instead of NT. Instead of the stupid Microsoft 640k conventional RAM kludge OS/2 would allow programs to be run from anywhere in RAM oddly enough like NT does today.  Only within the last year has Microsoft finally thrown of their 640k kludge entirely and embraced full OS/2-ness. The reason OS/2 was so slow on your system was because OS/2 was so ahead of it's time. Paging active programs through many megs of extended ram would have proven quite a task for early pentium systems let alone a 486. In fact it was only in the latter half of the 90s that systems which could really hadle it emerged. OS/2 was so advanced Microsoft is still pushing and touting it as the OS of the future. What? Would you expect Microsoft to innovate and come up with something new? Sheesh! This is reality after all.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #93
Quote
Yeah. OS/2 used RAM in a whole new way. If it had been allowed to develop as OS/2 we would be using it today instead of NT. Instead of the stupid Microsoft 640k conventional RAM kludge OS/2 would allow programs to be run from anywhere in RAM oddly enough like NT does today.  Only within the last year has Microsoft finally thrown of their 640k kludge entirely and embraced full OS/2-ness. The reason OS/2 was so slow on your system was because OS/2 was so ahead of it's time. Paging active programs through many megs of extended ram would have proven quite a task for early pentium systems let alone a 486. In fact it was only in the latter half of the 90s that systems which could really hadle it emerged. OS/2 was so advanced Microsoft is still pushing and touting it as the OS of the future. What? Would you expect Microsoft to innovate and come up with something new? Sheesh! This is reality after all.

As long as we're talking reality, why don't we talk practicality too:

(1) OS/2 might have been ahead of its time, but that fact itself was a problem.  It was just too slow for the average desktop (around the time Warp came out).

(2) Nobody really cared much about multitasking, for the same reasons (processors were too slow, RAM was too expensive).

(3) IBM was horribly bad at marketing OS/2... you can't put all the blame on Microsoft for OS/2's failure, since IBM was just so bad at marketing/selling the thing.

(4) The level of fanaticism of some OS/2 users really was a turnoff and I know for a fact it turned me away from trying OS/2 longer than I did.  Typically the attitude was to mindlessly bash anything Microsoft (including personal attacks on anyone using a Microsoft OS) while promoting OS/2 as "God's OS."  This kind of attitude just gets sickening after awhile, and very few want to feel part of a group of obsessive, abusive people.

Cheers,

fewtch

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #94
Quote
As long as we're talking reality, why don't we talk practicality too:

(1) OS/2 might have been ahead of its time, but that fact itself was a problem.  It was just too slow for the average desktop (around the time Warp came out).


Still I preffer a product ahead of it's time(OS/2) than a product perpettualy behind the times(Windows). Microsoft somehow manages to make each new version suck up more resources without doing anything really new.

Quote
(2) Nobody really cared much about multitasking, for the same reasons (processors were too slow, RAM was too expensive).


Had it been given the chance at life hardware would have caught up to it and things would have continued to be great. It was truly revolutionary design. The kind that is rare to see on the desktop today.

Quote
(3) IBM was horribly bad at marketing OS/2... you can't put all the blame on Microsoft for OS/2's failure, since IBM was just so bad at marketing/selling the thing.


OS/2 was originally meant for business use. IBM was always cursed with short sightedness in marketing. They were Big Blue and Business was their Business. I don't know about you but I remember the whole circus IBM put on when OS/2 WARP was released. It put everything that Microsoft had done to shame. OS/2 WARP was pushed hard at the home user and business user. Oodles of TV time was bought and fancy commercials were made. But the moment IBM started messing with the home market Microsoft bitch slapped em with threats to gouge them on Windows licensing on their machines if they did not caese and desist. IBM did not have the balls and backed off. In the end they even got so timid and meak that Microsoft started taking over the business market as well. Untill finally IBM could no longer sell OS/2 because people were wanting to use the same OS at home and at work. At that point IBM had no hopes for OS/2 and let Microsoft have at the code. And whaddyaknow?! BAM! Microsoft ctrl-c ctrl-v innovates as is often their habbit.(Sigma Designs who?)

Quote
(4) The level of fanaticism of some OS/2 users really was a turnoff and I know for a fact it turned me away from trying OS/2 longer than I did.  Typically the attitude was to mindlessly bash anything Microsoft (including personal attacks on anyone using a Microsoft OS) while promoting OS/2 as "God's OS."  This kind of attitude just gets sickening after awhile, and very few want to feel part of a group of obsessive, abusive people.


Yeah there was only one group worse than the OS/2 users. The Microsoft users of course. If it computed without Microsoft they would bash it. How do I know this? In my unenlightend days I was one of em for a while. Of that I am not proud. But it is possible for Microsoft users to honestly learn and grow beyond Microsoft.

To say that one group or another turned you off due to their bashing of other OS is absurd. If that were really the case you would have stuck to a pocket calculator. Windows users bash BeOS, QNX, BSD, Linux, OS/2(yes they are still out there), and Mac users constantly. Mac users hate Windows users almost religeously, they tollerate everyone else but they do look down their noses at them. Recently though Mac users and Linux/BSD users have become close friends. Linux users spend quite alot of time bashing Microsoft but see good stuff in everyone else. BSD, BeOS, and QNX users just do their own thing and hope they take over after the others destroy themselves.

Everyone has a favorite. And everyone has ones they don't like. Everyone bashes something.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #95
I was working for IBM when OS/2 Warp came out. They gave every employee in the UK a free copy. I chose a version which came on floppies, so I could format them and use them for something else .

Within months of Windows 95 coming out, more than a third of the people in my little section (of about 30 people) were running Windows 95 instead of OS/2 (and we only had 2 licences, but we'll ignore that for now  ) - it just felt so much better than OS/2 did. I never understood the witterings of people saying OS/2's desktop and widget set was interface nirvana - it was very clunky (particularly the 'notebook' metaphor it used instead of tabbed dialogues).

Windows 95 killed OS/2, not because of underhand tactics (although there were some of those), but simply because it was *better* than OS/2.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #96
Quote
I was working for IBM when OS/2 Warp came out. They gave every employee in the UK a free copy. I chose a version which came on floppies, so I could format them and use them for something else .

Within months of Windows 95 coming out, more than a third of the people in my little section (of about 30 people) were running Windows 95 instead of OS/2 (and we only had 2 licences, but we'll ignore that for now  ) - it just felt so much better than OS/2 did. I never understood the witterings of people saying OS/2's desktop and widget set was interface nirvana - it was very clunky (particularly the 'notebook' metaphor it used instead of tabbed dialogues).

Windows 95 killed OS/2, not because of underhand tactics (although there were some of those), but simply because it was *better* than OS/2.

They gave away OS/2 Warp in Denmark too. I got my dirty hands of at least 5 packages with floppies. Floppies were quite expensive in those days -- and actually useful.

If using the fast-floppy backup from Central Point Utils (or something like that) it was almost as fast as backup to the nasty QIC40 tape streamer. Damn I hated that tape streamer.

Arguments Against Using Windows Media 9

Reply #97
Quote
Quote

As long as we're talking reality, why don't we talk practicality too:

(1) OS/2 might have been ahead of its time, but that fact itself was a problem.  It was just too slow for the average desktop (around the time Warp came out).


Still I preffer a product ahead of it's time(OS/2) than a product perpettualy behind the times(Windows). Microsoft somehow manages to make each new version suck up more resources without doing anything really new.

As far as OS's go, I prefer a product that disappears into the background and lets me get things done, while forgetting completely that there's even an OS there.  Unfortunately, because of speed issues (and a few other things) OS/2 didn't allow that, so I went back to Windows 3.1 and waited for Win95.

Personally I really don't care if it's Microsoft, IBM, whatever... as long as I can do what I want to do with my PC.  Having been through the "OS wars" I learned that all you get is battle scars, and a lot of wasted time arguing.

All this said, I don't really care for the direction MS is going, and I don't see myself using Microsoft OS's much longer.  Now that they're integrating DRM, product registration, ".net" and stuff like that, they are starting to become intrusive too.  So when Win98SE no longer supports my hardware it's on to something else (yet to be determined).  Now that PC hardware is powerful enough to run just about anything, it should be a much easier choice when the time comes.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021