 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettable com> wrote :
>
> Saying don't make it so, pal.
Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
technology.
Sure all the other OS's have one or two of the many reasons, but Windows
has them all. And sure Windows has some problems and each of the other OS's
have some of those problems as well as different problems of their own.
"I don't like Windows", no matter how often repeated doesn't mean
something is not a standard. I don't like 10/32 threaded pan head slot
screws, but they are a standard for hanging ceiling fans. I don't like wire
sized screws at all, but they are a standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> > masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> > impact.
>
> Oh, this is bull.
>
> First off, Windows is also a GUI sitting on a command line.
Regardless of statements to the contrary, yes, Windows is still a GUI on top of
DOS. Additionally, in order to maintain backward compatibility, Windows has had
to keep a lot of badly designed legacy code. Windows has picked up a lot of new
baggage, a really incredible amount, in their attempt to be everything to all
people. I must say that I do enjoy programming for Windows using a properly
designed framework (Borland's VCL under C++Builder), but I can't wait for the
Linux version to come around.
> Second, there were plenty of masses using DOS. They didn't need no
> steenkin' Windows.
I have installed the CygWin environment (Unix on Windows) so I can have the nice
Unix-type tools that Windows is lacking. It helps ease the pain ;-)
> And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> which one that is.)
... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon. I've always wondered if Apple
didn't look at Windows when it first came out and remarked the phrase that
Cheech Marin quoted in one of his movies: "Hey, man! Somebody ripped off what I
ripped off!" ;-) What I like about Apple lately is their close attention to
what the public wants, now. Their new machines are really nice.
I use my Linux box more than I use my Windows box, but I have to say that I
can't recommend it to my less computer literate friends and family, yet. But I
would recommend a Mac to them before I recommended a Windows machine. I just
think that they have really got their act together now, and they know exatcly
where they are going.
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Saying don't make it so, pal.
>
> Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
> formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
> your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
> be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
> written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
> Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
> technology.
I think there is a point to be clarified here.
Most software is not written "for Windows". This implies choice of the
basis of merit, when no such choice is made. Programmers don't generally
sit down and say, "gee, Windows beats the hell out of everything else, I
think I'll write software for it". Likewise, companies don't generally
say, "hey, we just really happen to LIKE Microsoft".. unless, of course,
they're coerced by monopoly power. ;P
The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
platform.. which is to say, the largest. Ignoring the fact that the
different flavors of Windows tend to have all sorts of funny software
incompatibilities, this largest platform would be Windows.. but it could
just as easily be Macintosh, or Linux, or anything else, because the
software development has absolutely nothing to do with the platform itself.
Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
programs". They make their systems play native programs. The only
exception I can think of is people who run Windows in emulation.. which
tells me that those people are being given no choice as to whether to
run Windows or not, but are so opposed to using it as their native OS
that they would rather take a performance hit than switch platforms.
And, as a matter of fact, there's plenty of Windows-only software that a
lot of non-Windows users simply couldn't care less about. I don't need a
Windows text editor or a Windows FTP client; I have Mac-only versions
which I think are equal or superior to similar software available for Windows.
The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal.. not the neurotic
interface nightmare from Redmond. Powerful use of new technology? This
could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its competitors.
I submit that there is no standard.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> > making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> > else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> > which one that is.)
>
> ... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon.
Got perfectly legally, I should point out. Apple paid Xerox quite a lot
to look at what was essentially a crude interactive proof-of-concept
mockup that demonstrated interface principles which had been floating
around since (supposedly) the 60s. And if someone bothered to read about
that old Xerox GUI, they'd find that it wasn't really very similar to
the Mac OS after all.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote in message <3A2FC179.111E06A3@worldonline.nl>...
>Since this NG is geared toward animations
>most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection
and so
>they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
>other software
My two cents: I've got a 26400 connection. I figure I can download 10MB per
hour.
--
Mark
"The derivative of sin(2x) is cos(2x)" - Matt Giwer
"I never said that" - Matt Giwer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote:
>
> most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
> they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
> other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
> up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
> currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
Yes, I have good connection to the internet (mostly at about 100 to 300
kBytes
per second), but I am not willing to install yet another codec on my
system.
MPEG is enough. Why install another one for 2% size decrease with 2%
better
quality?
> people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
> several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
Now that's nice: You want to save bandwidth with a "better" codec and
then
suggest to post it in several formats? Sheesh...
> that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
That's what MPEG delivers, too.
> you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Noone talked of cinepak.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Most software is not written "for Windows".
><snip>
> The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> platform..
Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows", looking
at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
programming for Windows. Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
written for windows and some of them are ported to other OS's only after
months of popular use in Windows.
> Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
> programs".
Yes, they do. Perhaps most of the scrambling was done before you started
using computers, but I remember how many people came into my store asking
for a way to make Mac play Windows programs. There was a -huge- scramble
when it became possible.
> The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
> of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal
I did say that other OS's have some of the same benefits, just because
Mac is easy to use doesn't mean Winows is not. The best thing about Windows
is that because it is such a widespread standard, if you need a little help
with your computer, you can go right next door and ask your neighbor or go
down to almost any computer, software or office store and get some free
advice.
> Powerful use of new technology? This
> could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now that -is- rediculous. You not being able to see what it means does
not negate it's meaning. As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and
all the voice tech stuff is written for windows. And before you start up,
yes, other OS's address some new technology too. That does not detract from
the fact that Windows does too.
> Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
> There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
> computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
> can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
> and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
> despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
> And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
> would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its
competitors.
The "standard" is not declared, it develops. I had a Renault once and
people used to jibe me about my boxy little car, then I let a couple of
friends drive it and the response was very gratifying. They all said how
nice it was to drive. One of them made a telling point. He said, "Well it is
not as nice as a BMW or a Mercedes." I agreed and said that at least he was
not comparing it to a Ford Pinto. Standards.
> I submit that there is no standard.
Well, those who walk into a computer store and just -assume- that a
computer has and will run Windows will probably disagree with you. Perhaps
you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard". Neither I nor
most people would claim that it is the -only- or even the -best- standard,
but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
to meet or exceed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
> to meet or exceed.
Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
that comes with them.
Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
of its product, except maybe sales.
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:34:22 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
>> Ken wrote:
>> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
>> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
[...]
>As for the use of Win, it depends on whether you're talking about a
>pov-specific community or the whole world.
>
>TheCounter.com statistics. First column is the 2200 visitors to the
>10best.raytrace.com site, the other is the half a billion visitors to all web
>pages in the TheCounter.com database.
>
> [1] [2]
>Win 98 43% 66%
>Win NT 17% 7%
>Win 95 12% 15%
>Win 2K 8% 3%
>Linux 7% 0%
>Unkn 4% 2%
>Mac 3% 2%
>Unix 2% 0%
>
>Total
>Windows 80% 91%
To add statistics which may (or may not) be more relevant for the
discussion about which file formats are appropriate for this group, here
is the distribution of the 45 people who posted here recently:
Windows: 38 84 %
OE: 21 47 %
Netscape: 14 31 %
Forte: 2 4 %
XNews: 1 2 %
Linux: 3 7 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
KNode: 1 2 %
Other Unix: 2 4 %
tin: 2 4 %
Mac: 2 4 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
This actually fits your statistics from TheCounter.com surprisingly
well.
The sample is rather small and includes quite a few people who have
posted only once, but I'd be confident in saying that 80-90% use some
kind of Windows, and the rest is widely dispersed.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Es war nicht Gegenstand der Abstimmung zu
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | Zahlen neu festzulegen.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Johannes Schwenke <jby### [at] ginkode>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Er... Have you even seen Linux?
yes I duel boot.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
