 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Listen I come from the time of MS DOS, I was a noob programmer back
> then and among compilers, .dll and other basic programming components
> the chat between close friends was don't use that MS
> compiler/component/program is very slow, is buggy it doesn't do well
> this... is crappy. Maybe MS has changed in part that but that's all I'm
> admitting.
So you don't like them today, because you heard gossip about their
products 15 years ago?
> About MS (lol)... a few months ago Internet Explorer 7 Team invited some
> Mozilla FIreFox guys to help them better Integrate FireFox into the,
> back then, up coming Windows "Long Horn" (Vista), but I read in some
> other article later on, that they basically asked for help to give IE7
> tabbed capability and other FireFox security features, with all the
> millions, sorry BILLIONS... they ask developers from a freeware
> organization ADVICE. MS develops programming laguages... enough said.
Wow, you mean they were actually humble enough to ask for advice?
That's really impressive, coming from such a big corporation!
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote:
>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
>
> Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?
He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
>> Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?
>
> He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.
>
> Jim
lol, yeah sorry, my english is not very good, masterpiece, yes. I have
pushed it to see how stable it is, an is ROCK SOLID. I have loaded about
45 apps while I was listening music in winamp 2.89, connected to
internet and surfing/downloading on ADM K6 II-500 Mhz with 256 MB RAM.
Unless you do a illigal stuff like deleting/closing system stuff in the
registry/memory or files/folders, wont give you any kind of error.
The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Listen I come from the time of MS DOS, I was a noob programmer back
>> then and among compilers, .dll and other basic programming components
>> the chat between close friends was don't use that MS
>> compiler/component/program is very slow, is buggy it doesn't do well
>> this... is crappy. Maybe MS has changed in part that but that's all
>> I'm admitting.
>
> So you don't like them today, because you heard gossip about their
> products 15 years ago?
I read tech news all the time and many ppl complains about MS not doing
something they should have, like in common sense.
>> About MS (lol)... a few months ago Internet Explorer 7 Team invited
>> some Mozilla FIreFox guys to help them better Integrate FireFox into
>> the, back then, up coming Windows "Long Horn" (Vista), but I read in
>> some other article later on, that they basically asked for help to
>> give IE7 tabbed capability and other FireFox security features, with
>> all the millions, sorry BILLIONS... they ask developers from a
>> freeware organization ADVICE. MS develops programming laguages...
>> enough said.
>
> Wow, you mean they were actually humble enough to ask for advice? That's
> really impressive, coming from such a big corporation!
In deed, when billions and the MSDN doesn't cut it YOU HAVE TO.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since
it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes
and the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS
can do it? I'm sure they have very clever ppl that works on a excellence
basis, so why once in a while MS blows it, and yields crappy results, is
it marketing?, is it logistic?, is it administrative interference? human
error? I can, I truly can understand human error but Windows 95?! you
got to be kidding!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga escribió:
> The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.
It's not fun if I can't mess with it. That's why I prefer Linux :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since
> it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes
> and the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS
> can do it? I'm sure they have very clever ppl that works on a excellence
> basis, so why once in a while MS blows it, and yields crappy results, is
> it marketing?, is it logistic?, is it administrative interference? human
> error? I can, I truly can understand human error but Windows 95?! you
> got to be kidding!
Administrative interference most probably.
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since it
> has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes and
> the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS can do
> it?
Because they think their programmers will make the company more successful
by working on other stuff? It's not like they have 1000 programmers sitting
around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm not sure how related this is...
>
> Three or four people were fired from the Yahoo! Widgets team today.
>
> http://twitter.com/rickyromero/statuses/704725872
Wow, looks like they fired those people, but got the original Yahoo
Widgets engineer back! :|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:55:06 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>>>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
>>> Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?
>>
>> He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.
>>
>> Jim
> lol, yeah sorry, my english is not very good, masterpiece, yes. I have
> pushed it to see how stable it is, an is ROCK SOLID. I have loaded about
> 45 apps while I was listening music in winamp 2.89, connected to
> internet and surfing/downloading on ADM K6 II-500 Mhz with 256 MB RAM.
> Unless you do a illigal stuff like deleting/closing system stuff in the
> registry/memory or files/folders, wont give you any kind of error.
>
> The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.
Yeah, I think of all the versions of Windows I've used, I preferred 2K
over the others. In fact, the VMware machine that I have with Windows in
it has 2000, and it was originally built about 7 years ago.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
