[olug] Microsoft is out of control!

John DiMartino john_dimartino at mac.com
Fri May 7 05:19:19 UTC 2004

Like I said earlier - it is disappointing to see a company with the 
resources of MS just let something as bug ridden and worthless as the 
NT Kernel to just keep living and living.  It would make so much more 
sense for them to do what Apple did - start over with a proven kernel 
and build a better GUI.  If apple can do it with the limited resources 
they have MS could surely do it.

With MS's resources it wouldn't take that long and it would be a much 
better solution than the patch and pray going on now.

Oh well, if MS was about making good software they wouldn't have 
released WinME.


On May 7, 2004, at 12:07 AM, Brandon Lederer wrote:

> Mac's overcame this issue by allowing you to run Mac Classic on top of 
> OSX.
> So lets start over M$.... afterall were gonna have 4 GB of Ram, right? 
>  and a
> Terabyte of disk storage.... Whats the issue with running 2 OS's here?
> On Thursday 06 May 2004 11:26 pm, Jake Churchill wrote:
>> SUMMARY:  Apple is smart, Microsoft is stupid, unless you've never 
>> used
>> a Mac.
>> On May 6, 2004, at 11:08 PM, John DiMartino wrote:
>>> Well... they got all that legacy BSD code in there :)
>>> On May 6, 2004, at 10:52 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 05:26:13PM -0500, John DiMartino wrote:
>>>>> What I don't get is what is MS offering that isn't already in OS X?
>>>>> OS
>>>>> X runs better in every incarnation on older hardware.  What is MS
>>>>> doing
>>>>> to make each version of their OS that much more bloated?  Don't 
>>>>> they
>>>>> spend any time at all cleaning up and optimizing code?
>>>> I imagine they do spend some time doing it, but they have a hell of 
>>>> a
>>>> lot
>>>> more legacy to carry around than Apple does. Every time they roll 
>>>> out
>>>> new
>>>> APIs, system calls, etc, they have to keep the old ones. They've got
>>>> to
>>>> support crap that goes back ages. OS X is pretty new, written with a
>>>> totally different design model, and not dirtied up with history yet.
>>>> That
>>>> is also likely why Apple can roll out new versions so fast, such as
>>>> the
>>>> upcoming 10.4 "Tiger".
>>>> Microsoft can't really do what many opensource things do and just 
>>>> say
>>>> "We
>>>> no longer support doing X using the Y API." They would drive
>>>> developers
>>>> away quick.
>>>>> The fact that they add more and more worthless stuff without 
>>>>> actually
>>>>> doing anything quality with thier OS is just a reminder of why the
>>>>> court
>>>>> should have broken them up and forced some competition down their
>>>>> throats.
>>>> Doing something "quality" with an OS as big as Windows isn't exactly
>>>> easy.
>>>> I've seen some of the work that has had to go into FreeBSD 
>>>> throughout
>>>> 5.x
>>>> development. There is a hell of a lot of grunt work compared to 
>>>> "wow,
>>>> what
>>>> a neat feature!" There has been more work than any end user will 
>>>> ever
>>>> understand. SMPng is/was a total bitch. Now magnify this by 50,000 
>>>> to
>>>> match
>>>> the Microsoft codebase.
>>>> You also have to remember that Microsoft designs the operating 
>>>> system
>>>> and
>>>> adds things that the big time hardware and software developers want.
>>>> They're not entirely designing for you. They're designing for
>>>> companies
>>>> that want to sell you those flashy programs. So, Microsoft is better
>>>> off
>>>> adding APIs than they are flashy features. Apple isn't really in 
>>>> this
>>>> boat
>>>> yet, since there are way fewer Apple developers, both open and
>>>> commercial.
>>>> --
>>>> Sean Kelly         | PGP KeyID: D2E5E296
>>>> smkelly at zombie.org | http://www.zombie.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OLUG mailing list
>>>> OLUG at olug.org
>>>> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OLUG mailing list
>>> OLUG at olug.org
>>> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>> _______________________________________________
>> OLUG mailing list
>> OLUG at olug.org
>> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug

More information about the OLUG mailing list