Data Microsoft collects

On 2015-05-20 4:36 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/20/15 1:13 PM, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-20 10:31 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/20/15 8:20 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/19/15 6:55 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:53 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 5/19/2015 7:02 PM, Slimer wrote:


One capable, the other worthless. Can you tell which is which?


I was setting up my new Windows 8.1 tablet, and did not have
WordPerfect installed yet, and need a word processor.

To my surprise the DOS? wordprocessor MS Wordpad is include in the
basic program provided with Windows 8/8.1. I only used it a little
but seems a useful and up to date word processor.

So you don't have to go with MS Word, or Libre, but can use
WordPerfect or Wordpad.


We have *very* different opinions on this. As far as I'm concerned,
WordPad is not a real word processor, but is little more than a text
editor. But WordPerfect is far and away the best word processor
available, much better than Microsoft Office.

WordPad question, Ken...

I think I read somewhere, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far,
away, that WordPad was developed or something similar from the old
Microsoft Write program. Is my memory faulty or correct?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Write

WordPad is a step above NotePad, but well below MS Write in terms of
capability.

Thanks, Neil, just what I wanted to know. I actually have WordPerfect
for the Atari, and a computer that should run it. The comment about
software piracy is/was all too true about the Atari computing world, and
no doubt contributed to the demise of the platform.

I've read and watched a lot of videos about the Atari ST platform and I
frankly couldn't understand how it failed. Its operating system was fast
(unlike AmigaOS) and very simple to use. Whether you had an HD or not
made no difference because it was in ROM (unlike its competitor). It
couldn't multitask like AmigaOS, but things of the sort weren't as
valuable at a time when processors could barely handle multitasking
anyway. It worked with a monitor or on your TV, provided MIDI
connections and had a good amount of software as well as a competent
sound chip. It also cost less than a Mac and could run its software
provided you bought the necessary hardware.

There were some multitasking options available for the ST/TT computers.
One was called MultiTOS eventually, IIRC, and although I never used
it, I remember it getting nice reviews. Another was called MiNT, which
I never used. I think it was actually a version of Linux. There were a
couple of cooperative multitasking desktops, and one was called Geneva,
which I have installed on my Hades060 clone. I really liked what I
could do with it from a user perspective.

As far as I know, MultiTOS was the only option which remained compatible
with binaries made for the Atari ST as far as I know. Either way, it's a
shame that Atari essentially gave up and decided to focus on the Atari
Jaguar. While there was likely no chance that they would ever beat the
Mac or the PC, it could have been a very interesting option during the
time when PCs remained very expensive, especially if it continued the
Atari tradition of offering a lot for a little.

Since TOS was single tasking, to do something like Geneva, you had to
have a boot manager program that ran at boot up, where you could
selectively pick software that would run when you wanted to do some
particular work. Most users today would find that to be a PITA, but
back then, it couldn't be beat. Once I installed Geneva, and discovered
the wonders of multitasking, I knew that was the only way for my
computer uses to evolve. Multitasking fits the way I think.

There were also alternative desktops, so if you didn't like the
simplistic Atari desktop, based on the GEM desktop, you could have
something that was more flexible and more sophisticated in many ways.

Then there were accessories, that I think worked like task switching on
PCs. I never used task switchers so I don't know for sure. The Atari
accessories would read the contents of RAM, store it to the hard drive,
and then load a previously saved RAM session, and you would be right
back at the spot you were working when you saved the RAM session. Not
multitasking per se, but getting close.

Perfectly acceptable when you consider the fact that the hardware was
limited and this kind of feature would allow whatever program the user
was currently using to operate at full speed.

MIDI... Never used it for music, but I've heard it was a long, long
time before anything on the PC or Mac surpassed those abilities. You
could even network two Atari computers together using the MIDI ports. I
had an ST1040 and Mega4 connected this way and still have the cables.
Slow by today's standards, but better than the alternative of sneaker net.

It would have been interesting if used to share data and even play a
game. I doubt the company ever bothered to utilize it for that function
but it would have been interesting considering other companies at the
time did something similar for gaming (the Gameboy notably with its link
feature).

There were a couple Mac options. I had a cartridge called Spectre GCR,
and could run System 6 and all the software.

There was also a hardwired 8087 PC board for the ST series, which I
installed. That was my first experience with DOS, and it was 3.3. So
crappy to use compared to TOS on the Atari.

Considering how awful DOS was, it was a wonder that people insisted on
using a combination of it and Windows when better platforms already
existed. Eventually Windows caught up and provided a better interface
than Atari's and Apple's for anyone who chose the PC but it didn't
happen until the 3.0 release in 1990. Until that point, DOS and Windows
were simply awful.

Back then, companies like Borland wrote their software for many
platforms. A lot of PC programmers would write their code in C on the
Atari, then compile the finished product for the PC. The fact that
there were 4 windows to work in and test their code in made for faster
program creation.

There was hardware superiority too. The ST line had a 32 bit processor
and a 16 bit buss. The TT had the same 32 bit processor, but also had a
32 bit buss. I think the PCs were still using 8 bits at the time.

As far as I know, the ISA bus is 16-bit. It was available since 1981.
IBM sought to replace it in its PS/2 lines with the superior MCA,
especially to kill off the clones, but it never really took off. As for
the processors, the 286 was 16-bit but the 386 was 32-bit and it was
introduced in 1985, at the same time as the ST.

It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could
have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more
compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see
what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC
until at least 1988.

I think poor management also played a part. Things really started going
downhill when the son took over for the father.

From what I read, a lot of the lack of interest in the Atari ST had to
do with Tramiel's poor reputation. Retailers despised him and as a
result neglected to carry the product. That led to software developers
ignoring the product as well. I don't know how true that is but being
Polish like he was, I don't find it hard to believe that he was hard to
get along with, AT ALL.

I think, personally, the PC took off when Gates got the government
contracts, and the government started saying electronic submissions had
to be in certain file formats, obviously from software written for PCs.

An interesting Atari/Amiga trivia fact, the original prototype that
became AmigaOS was called the Lorraine. It was first offered to Atari
which turned it down, and Commordore picked it up. This is what was
published in the computer magazines of the time, so I don't believe the
information you'll find on Wikipedia in the Amiga Corporation is totally
correct. I had those old magazines until they got wet and were
destroyed. :-(

FWIW, there's still an active Atari hobbyist network, and much of the
original system has been updated, including a current close. Screenshots
I've seen are really nice. I'd like to update my Hades someday, but it
will probably never happen.

Even though Windows does a good job for me, I keep hoping to see more
competition in the computing world. Macs are technically the greatest
competition it can have, but the operating system sucks and is damned
slow no matter what hardware you throw at it. Linux, on the other hand,
is so awful and feels like alpha software no matter which distribution
you use. It would be fun to see a company like Atari re-emerge and offer
an interesting alternative. Amiga machines still exist but sell at way
too high a price for what they offer. An inexpensive but fully-featured
machine which didn't use Windows might actually find a market.


--
Slimer
Encrypt.