Microsoft Forces Windows 10 Downloads Onto Windows 7 And Windows 8

On 2015-09-14 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
On 9/14/15, 5:22 PM, in article , "Lloyd
Parsons" wrote:

Do you know of any good titles on OS X?

Haven't you been reading??

Sibelius, Finale - the two competing professional level music engraving
applications. PhotoScore, SmartScore - the only two music OCR applications
left, or at least I think that is true.

All are Windows and OSX cross-platform applications.

Sorry - not being familiar with them I was thinking they were Windows only.
You likely said otherwise and I missed it.

It is interesting to note that in forums that are dedicated to either Sibelius
or Finale that the split of professional level users between OS's is fairly
even. The music OCR applications in general are not loved as they have pretty
severe limitations.

But still, I bet, more capable than anything on Linux. Maybe Peter with his
vast knowledge of Linux software will step in to note some Linux titles
which compete well.

We await Peter the Klöwn's wise words and recommendations.


--
A.M

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:42:18 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

My wife has used both Sibelius and Finale on computers of friends who
run these pograms (she is a musician and a teacher, as well as those
friends).
She did not like them because both were way too complex for most tasks
and have very steep learning curves. She felt that those programs are
only OK for someone who does noteediting most of the time, whereas she
makes music and teaches, noteediting is something she does not that
often.

My daughter runs "Capella" which is more than good enough for 99% of
noteedit tasks

What? There is no one "best tool" for everyone? Even in this small
portion of the market, there is a need for multiple choices, for the
different needs and skill-sets of the users?

For the casual engraver the cost for Sibelius or Finale can be onerous as
they are pro-level. Finale has some lower level versions with some
limitations to help meet that need.

I know you're trying to take a dig at those of us that would like to see
some commercial success for Linux desktop, but as usual, you miss the
point of that proposition.

An OS that wants to be commercially successful has to reach a broad
audience, have a consistent marketing message to keep interest at a high
enough level to keep the sales rolling in, and it needs to at least be
consistent in its look and feel on a version basis.

In Linux desktop, the competing distros and UIs make for a confusing
marketing message. And that's why the commercial success for Linux
desktop has been elusive. It isn't that it is technically bad, it isn't.
In fact, it is quite good. And frankly, for most casual computer users
most of the distros would be just fine. But they will never know because
of the failure of marketing guidance in just how to make a commercial
success of a hobbyist/developer OS.

It doesn't help that most of the 'support' forums for the various distros
read almost like here with the 'advocates' incessant desire to show their
snobbery.



--
Lloyd

On 9/15/15, 1:00 AM, in article , "Peter Köhlmann"
wrote:

Haven't you been reading??

Sibelius, Finale - the two competing professional level music engraving
applications.
PhotoScore, SmartScore - the only two music OCR applications left, or at
least I think that is true.

All are Windows and OSX cross-platform applications.

And for the impaired mental midget Petey:
http://www.lilypond.org/easier-editing.html

Note: Linux, OSX and Windows all supported.


I know that they are. But does that detract from the fact that one of the
best music editors works on linux?

It does not - but it does show you were incorrect when you claimed OS X had
no such programs. The program you claim to be one of the "best" works on OS
X.

Once again you make a fool of yourself.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE
* Mint KDE working with folders: http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0
* Mint KDE creating files: http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8
* Mint KDE help: http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8
* Mint KDE general navigation: http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c

On 9/15/15, 5:12 AM, in article , "Lloyd
Parsons" wrote:

Haven't you been reading??

Sibelius, Finale - the two competing professional level music
engraving applications.
PhotoScore, SmartScore - the only two music OCR applications left, or
at least I think that is true.

All are Windows and OSX cross-platform applications.

And for the impaired mental midget Petey:
http://www.lilypond.org/easier-editing.html

Note: Linux, OSX and Windows all supported.


I know that they are. But does that detract from the fact that one of
the best music editors works on linux?


No it doesn't.

Right: but it does show Peter was wrong to say there was no such software on
OS X. Good that he has learned better now.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE
* Mint KDE working with folders: http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0
* Mint KDE creating files: http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8
* Mint KDE help: http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8
* Mint KDE general navigation: http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c

On 9/15/15, 5:48 AM, in article , "A.M"
wrote:

On 2015-09-14 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
On 9/14/15, 5:22 PM, in article , "Lloyd
Parsons" wrote:

Do you know of any good titles on OS X?

Haven't you been reading??

Sibelius, Finale - the two competing professional level music engraving
applications. PhotoScore, SmartScore - the only two music OCR applications
left, or at least I think that is true.

All are Windows and OSX cross-platform applications.

Sorry - not being familiar with them I was thinking they were Windows only.
You likely said otherwise and I missed it.

It is interesting to note that in forums that are dedicated to either
Sibelius
or Finale that the split of professional level users between OS's is fairly
even. The music OCR applications in general are not loved as they have
pretty
severe limitations.

But still, I bet, more capable than anything on Linux. Maybe Peter with his
vast knowledge of Linux software will step in to note some Linux titles
which compete well.

We await Peter the Klöwn's wise words and recommendations.


He responded and demonstrated his claim that OS X has no such software was
incorrect.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE
* Mint KDE working with folders: http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0
* Mint KDE creating files: http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8
* Mint KDE help: http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8
* Mint KDE general navigation: http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c

On 09/15/15 05:46, A.M so wittily quipped:
On 2015-09-14 7:55 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:42:35 -0400, A.M wrote:

On 2015-09-14 6:51 PM, Diesel wrote:
Jenny Telia Mon,
14 Sep 2015 07:26:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:49, Big Bad Bob wrote:


[although I like BSD, it doesn't have the same kinds of support at
this time, but may in the future...]

Don't count out IBM.


Haha haaaa...

Are they the geniuses that gave us OS2? The Chinese make their PCs now
('Lenovo') and IBM have become what they always were in spirit - an
'empty suit' organisation. Yes, Bill Gates helped pull the rug under
their feet. However they were always destined for mediocrity. May they
RIP ('Rot in Peace').


OS2/Warp was a superior OS to Windows. It suffered from **** poor
marketing by comparison and some shady **** MS pulled. I ran Os/2 Warp
v4 myself.. it rocked on a 486!

Well, OS/2 still exists as eComStation. You're free to use IT rather
than Windows or Linux.

While I loved OS/2 that ship has sailed...

I spent my adolescence assuming that OS/2 was going to become a
phenomenon.

I took a class in OS/2 presentation manager programming at a local
community college, right before Windows 3.0 was released. I believed
that IBM's API was superior in a lot of ways, and I liked the function
naming better (object/verb instead of verb/object - so 'WindowCreate()'
for OS/2, 'CreateWindow()' for MS Windows).

Once Windows 95 came out though, OS/2 was completely forgotten.

yep. OS/2 couldn't run the new 32-bit windows applications out of the box.

Now, the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft's complete
dominance of the x86 and x64 platforms is Linux.

not entirely. there ARE others, but Linux is the best candidate. It's
winning the "phone war" (via Android), it's winning the 'embedded' war
(via busybox and OpenWRT and things like that), and it appears to be
winning for SLABS as well (e-readers and MeGo and 'droid slabs and whatnot).

but yeah, Linux has the best shot at the moment.

Still you can't count out things like 'GhostBSD'...

On 09/15/15 03:14, Chris Ahlstrom so wittily quipped:
Big Bad Bob wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

On 09/14/15 20:42, Big Bad Bob so wittily quipped:
So "bad Linux users" include:

a) the socialists
b) the anarchists
c) the elitist snobs

and

d) the rest of us, who just want an OS that does things for us that
Linux does very very very well.

er, 'd' not being "bad" (oops)

too bad I can't edit

But you're pretty good at making up stuff.


eh? ~what~ exactly have I 'made up'?

you're free to disbelieve me if you want. It doesn't bother me. But I
do _NOT_ lie. I'm not a 'Clinton'.

On 09/14/15 21:55, mike so wittily quipped:
On 9/14/2015 8:40 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:


yeah, too many socialist types making loud noises in the Linux
community. And yet, a LOT of true capitalists, who recognize that an
occasional "co-op" effort is highly profitable! OpenWRT is another good
example. It helps the entire industry.

this is the kind of thing that could make Linux "the next platform" and
KEEP it that way, indefinitely, giving people INFINITE choice
possibilities, along with supported hardware, supported software, and
all of the things that Windows does now.


Desktop linux already has WAY too much CHOICE.

why is THAT a BAD thing?

How about a little STANDARDIZATION with a side of STABILITY.

Standardize to *WHAT* - what YOU like? Then we get what Windows 8.x and
Windows 10 have done. NO! THANK! YOU!!!

how about letting people get whatever THEY want? Just make sure the
choices are well presented and easy to make.

We need ONE standard desktop linux so everybody can start on the same
page.

why? (present your case, thanks).

I suggest that people are pretty smart, and can figure things out as
long as the information is presented in a reasonable way.


It's not rocket science. All it takes is leadership and developers
willing to follow the plan instead of forking off on their own.

'forking off on their own' - you miss the benefits of freedom and
creativity by saying things like that.

_I_ shall not allow _ANYONE_ to restrict _MY_ choice, or _MY_ freedom to
"fork off on my own".

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:26:20 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 09/15/15 05:46, A.M so wittily quipped:
On 2015-09-14 7:55 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:42:35 -0400, A.M wrote:

On 2015-09-14 6:51 PM, Diesel wrote:
Jenny Telia
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:26:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:49, Big Bad Bob wrote:


[although I like BSD, it doesn't have the same kinds of support at
this time, but may in the future...]

Don't count out IBM.


Haha haaaa...

Are they the geniuses that gave us OS2? The Chinese make their PCs
now ('Lenovo') and IBM have become what they always were in spirit
- an 'empty suit' organisation. Yes, Bill Gates helped pull the
rug under their feet. However they were always destined for
mediocrity. May they RIP ('Rot in Peace').


OS2/Warp was a superior OS to Windows. It suffered from **** poor
marketing by comparison and some shady **** MS pulled. I ran Os/2
Warp v4 myself.. it rocked on a 486!

Well, OS/2 still exists as eComStation. You're free to use IT rather
than Windows or Linux.

While I loved OS/2 that ship has sailed...

I spent my adolescence assuming that OS/2 was going to become a
phenomenon.

I took a class in OS/2 presentation manager programming at a local
community college, right before Windows 3.0 was released. I believed
that IBM's API was superior in a lot of ways, and I liked the function
naming better (object/verb instead of verb/object - so 'WindowCreate()'
for OS/2, 'CreateWindow()' for MS Windows).

Once Windows 95 came out though, OS/2 was completely forgotten.

yep. OS/2 couldn't run the new 32-bit windows applications out of the
box.

Now, the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft's complete
dominance of the x86 and x64 platforms is Linux.

not entirely. there ARE others, but Linux is the best candidate. It's
winning the "phone war" (via Android), it's winning the 'embedded' war
(via busybox and OpenWRT and things like that), and it appears to be
winning for SLABS as well (e-readers and MeGo and 'droid slabs and
whatnot).

but yeah, Linux has the best shot at the moment.

Still you can't count out things like 'GhostBSD'...

Desktop linux has no shot at taking over the desktop.



--
Lloyd

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:27:22 -0700, Big Bad Bob
wrote:

On 09/15/15 03:14, Chris Ahlstrom so wittily quipped:
Big Bad Bob wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

On 09/14/15 20:42, Big Bad Bob so wittily quipped:
So "bad Linux users" include:

a) the socialists
b) the anarchists
c) the elitist snobs

and

d) the rest of us, who just want an OS that does things for us that
Linux does very very very well.

er, 'd' not being "bad" (oops)

too bad I can't edit

But you're pretty good at making up stuff.


eh? ~what~ exactly have I 'made up'?

you're free to disbelieve me if you want. It doesn't bother me. But I
do _NOT_ lie. I'm not a 'Clinton'.

Is that a confession ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 09/14/15 21:51, Snit so wittily quipped:
evidence, or heresay.

Glad you asked. Here, just SOME evidence... much of it (though not all) from
peer-reviewed journals. Sorry... know it is overwhelming, so I have
summarized it first. But all backed up by the links I provide, below:

* Watching Fox is correlated with being less informed than watching no
news at all or even with watching Comedy Central

that's not EVIDENCE, it's YOUR OPINION.

* PBS & NPR viewers / listeners were the most informed

that's not EVIDENCE, it's YOUR OPINION. Give me something *compelling*
please, something that would work in a COURT ROOM for a LAWSUIT or
CRIMINAL TRIAL.

* In a study looking at multiple sources Fox news viewers were 3x as
likely to hold a set of three misconceptions than any other source

a) what were the alleged "misconceptions" - "don't believe in man-made
global warming" was ONE of them, right? [yeah THAT isn't a rigged survey!]

b) who conducted the survey and what were the questions?

c) what post-analysis was done to make certain that the sample was
'representative' and not skewed in any way?

* An internal memo from Fox was shown that demonstrated they have a
policy of lying about science to push a right-wing agenda

a) where is this alleged 'memo'
b) what did it say exactly?
c) is there sufficient proof that it is genuine?
d) 2 words, "Dan Rather".

* Fox news viewers were more likely to shun learning from other
sources (they tend to want an echo-chamber)

a) who conducted this survey
b) what was the actual data
c) what questions were asked, was the sample representative, etc. etc. etc.

* Fox viewers underestimated the death toll of US soldiers in Iraq more
than viewers of other sources

same about who conducted what survey on whom and was it truly a
representative sample

* Fox news has a consistent pro-Republican bias

based on what information?

* Fox news is shown to repeatedly lie about global warming / climate
change (93% of their reporting on this was dishonest or misleading
in one report)

this appears to be a subjective and biased statement, based upon a
pre-loaded bias towards ANYTHING that disproves man made global warming
being "a lie".

* Not just Republicans who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed,
but also Democrats

define 'mis-informed' in this context. If you mean that NOT towing the
lamestream media narrative being "mis-informed", then perhaps your
statement is "correct". Note placement of quote marks, because
definition of those terms in a way that favors your statement is the
only possible method by which it can even be REMOTELY relevant.

* Watching Fox news is correlated with being ignorant of climate science

only when you define 'being ignorant of climate science' as NOT buying
into the left-wing-agenda-driven 'man made global warming' mantra.

* Of stories examined by Poltifact, Fox new has the lowest rating of
accuracy

'Poltifact' is a click-bait site. 'Politifact' is probably the one you
want to mention. (I saw a similar clickbait 'factcheck.com' vs
'factcheck.org', interestingly enough)

and you have a link to back up that statement, right? And you have all
of the criteria that was allegedly used to conclude that, right?

[if NOT, I call *bull***** on your claims!]

* Even though Fox is the least reliable, and its viewers the worst
informed, conservatives tend to trust Fox over any other source!

"even though" those are your OPINIONS, you have no actual FACTS to base
them upon.


http://illinois-online.org/krassa/ps101/Readings
/Kull%20Ramsay%20Lewis%202003.pdf

heh, no need to even READ that to know what's in it - Steven Kull, one
of the authors, wrote a book "Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim
Anger at America" - sounds like he's right inline with Obaka's policies
towards the middle east, basically apologizing for us being America.

I didn't find info on the other 2 authors (Evan Lewis, Clay Ramsay)
quickly enough, but I don't think I'd be wrong. I was actually looking
for a 'george soros' or 'media matters' connection to it, found THAT
instead.

yeah, I don't need to read biased material like THAT. if you don't like
the fact that I'm rejecting the material based on who was involved in
writing it, then that would be *IRONIC* wouldn't it?

On 09/15/15 10:34, Lloyd Parsons so wittily quipped:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:26:20 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 09/15/15 05:46, A.M so wittily quipped:
On 2015-09-14 7:55 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:42:35 -0400, A.M wrote:

On 2015-09-14 6:51 PM, Diesel wrote:
Jenny Telia
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:26:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:49, Big Bad Bob wrote:


[although I like BSD, it doesn't have the same kinds of support at
this time, but may in the future...]

Don't count out IBM.


Haha haaaa...

Are they the geniuses that gave us OS2? The Chinese make their PCs
now ('Lenovo') and IBM have become what they always were in spirit
- an 'empty suit' organisation. Yes, Bill Gates helped pull the
rug under their feet. However they were always destined for
mediocrity. May they RIP ('Rot in Peace').


OS2/Warp was a superior OS to Windows. It suffered from **** poor
marketing by comparison and some shady **** MS pulled. I ran Os/2
Warp v4 myself.. it rocked on a 486!

Well, OS/2 still exists as eComStation. You're free to use IT rather
than Windows or Linux.

While I loved OS/2 that ship has sailed...

I spent my adolescence assuming that OS/2 was going to become a
phenomenon.

I took a class in OS/2 presentation manager programming at a local
community college, right before Windows 3.0 was released. I believed
that IBM's API was superior in a lot of ways, and I liked the function
naming better (object/verb instead of verb/object - so 'WindowCreate()'
for OS/2, 'CreateWindow()' for MS Windows).

Once Windows 95 came out though, OS/2 was completely forgotten.

yep. OS/2 couldn't run the new 32-bit windows applications out of the
box.

Now, the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft's complete
dominance of the x86 and x64 platforms is Linux.

not entirely. there ARE others, but Linux is the best candidate. It's
winning the "phone war" (via Android), it's winning the 'embedded' war
(via busybox and OpenWRT and things like that), and it appears to be
winning for SLABS as well (e-readers and MeGo and 'droid slabs and
whatnot).

but yeah, Linux has the best shot at the moment.

Still you can't count out things like 'GhostBSD'...

Desktop linux has no shot at taking over the desktop.


and you say that, because... ?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:03:43 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 09/15/15 10:34, Lloyd Parsons so wittily quipped:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:26:20 -0700, Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 09/15/15 05:46, A.M so wittily quipped:
On 2015-09-14 7:55 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:42:35 -0400, A.M wrote:

On 2015-09-14 6:51 PM, Diesel wrote:
Jenny Telia
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:26:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:49, Big Bad Bob wrote:


[although I like BSD, it doesn't have the same kinds of support
at this time, but may in the future...]

Don't count out IBM.


Haha haaaa...

Are they the geniuses that gave us OS2? The Chinese make their
PCs now ('Lenovo') and IBM have become what they always were in
spirit - an 'empty suit' organisation. Yes, Bill Gates helped
pull the rug under their feet. However they were always destined
for mediocrity. May they RIP ('Rot in Peace').


OS2/Warp was a superior OS to Windows. It suffered from **** poor
marketing by comparison and some shady **** MS pulled. I ran Os/2
Warp v4 myself.. it rocked on a 486!

Well, OS/2 still exists as eComStation. You're free to use IT
rather than Windows or Linux.

While I loved OS/2 that ship has sailed...

I spent my adolescence assuming that OS/2 was going to become a
phenomenon.

I took a class in OS/2 presentation manager programming at a local
community college, right before Windows 3.0 was released. I believed
that IBM's API was superior in a lot of ways, and I liked the function
naming better (object/verb instead of verb/object - so
'WindowCreate()'
for OS/2, 'CreateWindow()' for MS Windows).

Once Windows 95 came out though, OS/2 was completely forgotten.

yep. OS/2 couldn't run the new 32-bit windows applications out of the
box.

Now, the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft's complete
dominance of the x86 and x64 platforms is Linux.

not entirely. there ARE others, but Linux is the best candidate.
It's winning the "phone war" (via Android), it's winning the
'embedded' war (via busybox and OpenWRT and things like that), and it
appears to be winning for SLABS as well (e-readers and MeGo and 'droid
slabs and whatnot).

but yeah, Linux has the best shot at the moment.

Still you can't count out things like 'GhostBSD'...

Desktop linux has no shot at taking over the desktop.


and you say that, because... ?

Simple history and trends. If after 20+ years of getting no traction on
the desktop, it isn't going to happen now. And that's because you have
two competing interests in the linux desktop arena.

Interest #1 is the overall community that loves the plethora of distros
and UIs. As a free and open OS with a strong hobbyist/developer
community behind that thought it is good. but...

Interest #2 is the vastly smaller part that would like to get some
commercial success with Linux desktop. For them the number of distros
and UIs make having a consistent marketing message nearly impossible to
do.

Doesn't help that when Canonical made a run at that with a mix of free
and commercial software the 'community' howled loudly. Couple that with
probably the poorest batch of support forums out there and almost no
actual formal support structure and you have the prescription for failure.

Note that I'm not at all saying that Linux on the desktop isn't
technically a good OS, just that from a marketing/sales point of view,
there is no way to make it a commercial success.




--
Lloyd

Big Bad Bob wrote:

Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:

Desktop linux has no shot at taking over the desktop.

and you say that, because... ?

"Lloyd" is a Mactarded troll. I would advise filtering his garbage.

--
"Until there is a unified Linux for business and comsumers, it will be
relegated to the hobbyist on the desktop." - Lying Lloyd

On 2015-09-15 1:26 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
On 09/15/15 05:46, A.M so wittily quipped:
On 2015-09-14 7:55 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:42:35 -0400, A.M wrote:

On 2015-09-14 6:51 PM, Diesel wrote:
Jenny Telia Mon,
14 Sep 2015 07:26:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On 13/09/2015 20:49, Big Bad Bob wrote:


[although I like BSD, it doesn't have the same kinds of support at
this time, but may in the future...]

Don't count out IBM.


Haha haaaa...

Are they the geniuses that gave us OS2? The Chinese make their PCs now
('Lenovo') and IBM have become what they always were in spirit - an
'empty suit' organisation. Yes, Bill Gates helped pull the rug under
their feet. However they were always destined for mediocrity. May they
RIP ('Rot in Peace').


OS2/Warp was a superior OS to Windows. It suffered from **** poor
marketing by comparison and some shady **** MS pulled. I ran Os/2 Warp
v4 myself.. it rocked on a 486!

Well, OS/2 still exists as eComStation. You're free to use IT rather
than Windows or Linux.

While I loved OS/2 that ship has sailed...

I spent my adolescence assuming that OS/2 was going to become a
phenomenon.

I took a class in OS/2 presentation manager programming at a local
community college, right before Windows 3.0 was released. I believed
that IBM's API was superior in a lot of ways, and I liked the function
naming better (object/verb instead of verb/object - so 'WindowCreate()'
for OS/2, 'CreateWindow()' for MS Windows).

I wouldn't know. Programming never interested me so I wouldn't know how
good IBM's development tools were. What I DO know is that the
applications which were native to OS/2 were poor ports of what had
appeared in Windows 3.1 and people were better off simply using the
Windows versions.

Once Windows 95 came out though, OS/2 was completely forgotten.

yep. OS/2 couldn't run the new 32-bit windows applications out of the box.

And there was no way Microsoft was going to help make those applications
compatible with OS/2 either. IBM would have no choice but to rely on
older 16-bit applications if Windows users expected to migrate to OS/2
without feeling too much of a sacrifice.

Now, the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft's complete
dominance of the x86 and x64 platforms is Linux.

not entirely. there ARE others, but Linux is the best candidate. It's
winning the "phone war" (via Android), it's winning the 'embedded' war
(via busybox and OpenWRT and things like that), and it appears to be
winning for SLABS as well (e-readers and MeGo and 'droid slabs and whatnot).

but yeah, Linux has the best shot at the moment.

Still you can't count out things like 'GhostBSD'...

I meant on the desktop.


--
A.M