 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> imply another to be inferior, does it?
> The obvious comparison is video where there were a couple if systems that were
> generally considered to be superior but still VHS became the standard.
I think we may be referring to "Standard" with different intentions. I propose
this: Windows is not a standard per se, but it uses many standards that others,
and Microsoft, have created or are trying to create (and in some cases have been
pushed upon us).
The study of human factors and GUI design have been driven jointly by the
capabilities that an OS can give us, the way people interact with information,
human factors specialists who study how we process information, real-world
analogs like lists, buttons, etc. In my recollection, Xerox, Macintosh - perhaps
even Amiga - had a say in the development of this new area. When Windows came
around a lot of these ideas had been in place already. Without some research,
it's hard to say who contributed what to the still-evolving concensus of what
makes the best GUI, but there are definite standards that have evolved, and you
can see the similarities in the way things work between Gnome, KDE, MS-Windows,
Macintosh, IRIX, Amiga, etc. And when the WWW began rising to prominence and
Netscape was dominant, Microsoft was caught sleeping, but look at the standards
that have emerged from that which have become part of the way we interact with
computers - Microsoft had very little to do with "innovation" there, although
they tried to foist various things upon us and tried to hijack Java. They have
followed the lead of the industry in this case. Arguably, OpenGL has become the
standard in 3D graphics APIs, and MIcrosoft has used this.
So, we have to be careful in making sure we all understand what is meant by
saying something or other is the standard.
> BTW, shouldn't this discussion be in OT? (where I wouldn't read it...)
Yes, it foes, but I wouldn't read it there
either and this is kind of fun ;-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pc org
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:d9s33t0vl20g7hkdjvu78do388em5dupcj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:24:56 -0500, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long
to
> >supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention
Linux
> >windowing systems...
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Every time I start to wonder why Windows is so widespread, I hear or
> read something like this from someone like you and I realise it...
> though I still do not understand it. Good marketting and
> advertismenent is one thing, but successfully fooling millions into
> believing myths calls for a marketting genius (which Gates seems to
> be). Or do you not know that it has always been Windows that has
> replicated ideas from the Mac GUI?
Windows rebuilt a wheel when it made a GUI like Mac already had. How
else would you make a wheel but round? It was much like several other
systems already available including "DeskMate" a simple Tandy system that
rode over DOS and allowed mouse clicking on programs you wanted to run.
Perhaps Mac copied RadioShack?
But that is -not- what I was talking about. Mac thought they needed to
be able to run Windows Compatible programs to stay in business. So they
worked long nights to make it so. Fortunately for them, product loyalty
carried them through what even giving computers to teachers so that they
would teach Mac to millions of students couldn't prevent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> > I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> > imply another to be inferior, does it?
> > The obvious comparison is video where there were a couple if systems that were
> > generally considered to be superior but still VHS became the standard.
>
> I think we may be referring to "Standard" with different intentions. I propose
> this: Windows is not a standard per se, but it uses many standards that others,
> and Microsoft, have created or are trying to create (and in some cases have been
> pushed upon us).
>
> The study of human factors and GUI design have been driven jointly by the
> capabilities that an OS can give us, the way people interact with information,
> human factors specialists who study how we process information, real-world
> analogs like lists, buttons, etc. In my recollection, Xerox, Macintosh - perhaps
> even Amiga - had a say in the development of this new area. When Windows came
> around a lot of these ideas had been in place already. Without some research,
> it's hard to say who contributed what to the still-evolving concensus of what
> makes the best GUI, but there are definite standards that have evolved, and you
> can see the similarities in the way things work between Gnome, KDE, MS-Windows,
> Macintosh, IRIX, Amiga, etc. And when the WWW began rising to prominence and
> Netscape was dominant, Microsoft was caught sleeping, but look at the standards
> that have emerged from that which have become part of the way we interact with
> computers - Microsoft had very little to do with "innovation" there, although
> they tried to foist various things upon us and tried to hijack Java. They have
> followed the lead of the industry in this case. Arguably, OpenGL has become the
> standard in 3D graphics APIs, and MIcrosoft has used this.
>
Your choice of words already indicates a certain opinion (I don't even know what
foist is but it doesn't sound very appreciative, I do know what hijack is). I
don't think Microsoft can claim to be inventors or developers of the GUI
standard (if there is one), neither can Apple or any other single company. Some
may have come up with the seeds but GUIs are constantly developing as is the
interface hardware.
Strange thing is that it seems that there's much more then the GUI in Windows or
any other OS. Also, since it's obviously not very hard to emulate a GUI it's of
little importance as to whether any OS is a standard or not.
Besides that there is also a difference in context which confuses the
discussion. I don't think a lot of people would argue about Mac being the
standard in computer aided graphic design. That's probably because most
designers use a Mac. There will probably be similar standards in other fields
(webservers, industrial applications, science, personal use etc.).
> So, we have to be careful in making sure we all understand what is meant by
> saying something or other is the standard.
>
> > BTW, shouldn't this discussion be in OT? (where I wouldn't read it...)
>
> Yes, it foes, but I wouldn't read it there
> either and this is kind of fun ;-)
>
Yes, it seems to be. 8)
As long as it doesn't turn into another religious war.
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Oude Tonge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> Your choice of words already indicates a certain opinion (I don't even know what
> foist is but it doesn't sound very appreciative, I do know what hijack is). I
> don't think Microsoft can claim to be inventors or developers of the GUI
> standard (if there is one), neither can Apple or any other single company. Some
> may have come up with the seeds but GUIs are constantly developing as is the
> interface hardware.
I guess my post might be kind of confusing, but the point I was trying to get
across is this:
I don't believe that an operating system can be looked at as a Standard, by any
definition of the word. An OS uses different technologies or methods of
operation which might be accepted as "Standard", such as OpenGL, Drag-and-drop,
cut-and-paste shortcut key definitions, etc.
An OS might be made up of a collection of those technologies or methods that are
accepted as Standards, as well as some unique features which are native only to
that single OS. I would say that a Windows/Intel machine is a "platform", as is
a PowerPC running OS X or an Alpha running Linux, etc.
A statement was made earlier in this thread:
+++
"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 do not agree at all with the above statement. Given my prior explanation, I
would say that Windows is merely the most commonly used platform, or the most
widely used OS. Some of that is because of marketing - you must admit that Bill
Gates is a marketing genius. It is also easy to use (for the most part) for
those who really do not like computers that much. You certainly would not use it
in a render farm for a movie like "Titanic". You wouldn't use it for anything
that needed security, either. But, I have a Windows machine, and two Linux
boxes. I enjoy programming for Windows, occasionally. But, it really grates on
me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
understand the entire industry."
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> imply another to be inferior, does it?
It does when you have people like Ken saying that if you're not using a
certain OS, then any compatibility problems you have as the result of
using a different OS are your fault, not the fault of the person who
caused you to have compatibility problems.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> But, it really grates on
> me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
> first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
> who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
> Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
> understand the entire industry."
>
How about someone who is (earning a living) writing software for an OS that can
actually be used or even bought by a large group of users?
To think something is "nice" or even "great" doesn't mean you're instantly blind
to its shortcomings. Focussing on those shortcomings to prove another such
things is better seems to be more a type of blindness.
> Jon
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That seems more like a problem of deciding whose 'fault' something is, not
exactly an inherent statement about quality.
If someone sent me a letter in Chines I could blame him for making it unreadable
to me or I could blame myself for not being able to read Chines but it says
nothing about the quality of the Chines language or my own language. Or does it?
Let's see, is English a better language then for instance French or Latin? Why
would it be that French or Latin were 'standard' languages sometime among
certain groups of people. Because they were supposed to be better at that time?
Remco
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> > I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> > imply another to be inferior, does it?
>
> It does when you have people like Ken saying that if you're not using a
> certain OS, then any compatibility problems you have as the result of
> using a different OS are your fault, not the fault of the person who
> caused you to have compatibility problems.
>
> -Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> "Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
> >
> > But, it really grates on
> > me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
> > first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
> > who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
> > Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
> > understand the entire industry."
> >
>
> How about someone who is (earning a living) writing software for an OS that can
> actually be used or even bought by a large group of users?
Prior to three months ago I had been with a company that sells data management
systems to large pipeline companies. We used C++Builder and Oracle to develop
the software. IIRC, the app we were writing was selling in the high five digit
range. It was a very large program with a long design and production phase. It
was written to run on Windows. It was a rewarding and challenging project to
work on. I already knew what Windows could do, but during those years I worked
on that project I also learned what it could not do. One of those things was
that every so often my machine had to be rebooted because it just could not
manage memory properly. My linux box runs for weeks at a time while I beat the
h@ll out of it.
When I hear someone give an unqualified and blanket statement about how great
Windows is the first statement that comes to mind is as I described above, but
prior to writing that I made a stipulation "Whether it is true or not" [that the
user is unqualified to make such a judgement]. I admit that I could be wrong,
and that it is somewhat prejudicial of myself to make such a statement, but it
comes from past experience that often I am correct in that assumption. It really
depends on the situation.
> To think something is "nice" or even "great" doesn't mean you're instantly blind
> to its shortcomings. Focussing on those shortcomings to prove another such
> things is better seems to be more a type of blindness.
True, but I am much more receptive to a subjective opinion when it is more
limited or more directed than simply saying "Windows is great. Windows is the
standard. Everyone tries to emulate Windows". I could readily agree with someone
if they said merely: using POV-Ray on Windows is fun, or that "you can find
software to do anything under Windows", or that "in general, plug and play under
Windows works fairly well".
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:24:56 -0500, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long to
> >supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention Linux
> >windowing systems...
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Every time I start to wonder why Windows is so widespread, I hear or
> read something like this from someone like you and I realise it...
> though I still do not understand it. Good marketting and
> advertismenent is one thing, but successfully fooling millions into
> believing myths calls for a marketting genius (which Gates seems to
> be). Or do you not know that it has always been Windows that has
> replicated ideas from the Mac GUI?
The method used was as old as the Atari and Commodore competitors to
the Apple II. They paid (co-developed so it would not be so obvious) the
most popular software companies to port their products to Windows. Atari
paid Visicalc to port their spreadsheet to the 800. MS paid (by then)
Lotus to port to windows. There was also a deal with Word Perfect (which
had just eaten WordStar's lunch) to port to Windows.
The only thing that is a modest secret is that Gate's parents are
filthy rich and got him over the early hurdles, off the ground and tons
of very experienced advice.
> As for those among you who don't know, there's no such thing as a
> Linux windowing system. There's no such thing as a Unix windowing
> system either, for those of you who still don't make the difference.
> It's the X windowing system and it is an entity as separate from the
> OS. And Windows has a long way to go before it reaches the standards
> of X in stability and device independence, not to mention remote
> terminal sessions.
There a graphics app with hooks and handles for damn near anything to
be applied.
--
What you don't remember you can never forget.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 62
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
>
> True, but I am much more receptive to a subjective opinion when it is more
> limited or more directed than simply saying "Windows is great. Windows is the
> standard. Everyone tries to emulate Windows". I could readily agree with someone
> if they said merely: using POV-Ray on Windows is fun, or that "you can find
> software to do anything under Windows", or that "in general, plug and play under
> Windows works fairly well".
>
I totally agree.
But saying 'Windows is great' is just as much a simplification as saying
'Windows sucks'. That's all I'm trying to say, actually 8)
> Jon
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
