|
** Reply to note from Bob Crothers <bcrothers@netdirect.net> Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:34:20 -0000 Bob, I have stong disagreements with you. I don't wish to flame, so please try and be patient with me if I seem to go to far, I will try very hard not to. > However, when an application crash's the operating system, is it > the OS's fault or the applications? True, the OS shouldn't > crash, but it is still the application that should get the > majority of the blame. No, it shouldn't. The application should be blamed for when it crashes. The OS should deal with that, close the app down, and go on. Of course, this is a "perfect world" and all OSs have different levels of performance here. > BTW, if I write a program that first does a CHGJOB RUNPTY(1) and > then goes into a tight closed loop with no I/O, you would think > the "machine crashed" when I ran it. Technically, OS/400 has > not crashed, but it is no longer available either. The other > users would sure think it crashed. And the quickest way to make > the machine available would probably be to "pull the plug". > IBM's fault? I hardly think so. But this is what you are > accusing Microsoft of. This example is completely out of line with the topic. Here, you have written a program to specifically take control of the system and down it. The first time this happens, the user would no doubt look to the solution of having you not tell the system to crash. In the mean time, they could restrict the run priority of the job so that it would fail to get the priority which caused the problem. In the case of Windows being crashed by CA, we are talking about an application that works fine as long as you don't run too many copies. At four, the operating system is crashing out from under it. > Windows is no where near the quality of OS/400. But you did not > pay thousands of dollars for it either. Completely false. In my office we have approx. 120 users. Each of them has a machine that came with Win 3.1 installed, and was later changed to Win 95. The cost of Win 3.1 (although bundled, I would be naive to believe that the cost of the OS was not passed on to me) I estimate at $100 and the cost of Win 95 about the same. In addition, since the change to Win95 was forced on us as companies could no longer support 16 bit versions of their software, we were forced also to upgrade hardware as well as spend many, many hours in the upgrade process. At a base cost of $24,000 (est.) plus (being kind) 120 man hours, I would call our investment in this product significant. What is the cost for OS/400 version 4.1 for the same number of users? While all vendors will drop support for older versions of their product, Microsoft also used legal and market pressures to force vendors to quit supporting older versions of their product. This is the tactic I refer to when I say we were "forced to upgrade". > Do I want to see Windows improve? You bet. But, is it the > "root of all evil" that some on this list say? No. Windows is a disappointing product. It isn't the "root of all evil" and I don't recall anyone saying so. I can only feel that the reason people seem to enjoy Windows 95 so much is that they come from Windows 3.1. If I grew up in Beirut, I would probably enjoy the quiet life of East L.A. Windows only improves because of competition. During the last year or so before Win 95 was released, many, many features were announced as a result of the pressure from OS/2 (which was already delivering those same features). Since IBM dropped marketing against the consumer market, what has Win 95 seen? > And on the subject of Microsoft's "marketing tactics", lets not > forget that IBM is not exactly an angel either. Remember their > problems with the DOJ and Anti-Trust laws in the 60's, 70's & > 80's. IBM is the one who invented "guerilla marketing". > Microsoft just refined and took it to a new level. An ever amusing tactic. So, what you are stating here is that it is fine that Microsoft is ripping off you and me because IBM got in trouble for the same thing twenty years ago. This thread had nothing to do with IBM. Read over what you have written, please. Doesn't it look like you are somehow trying to state that Microsoft is better than IBM because they are a better criminal? Why would you think that one company should be stopped from destroying fair trade, but another company should be allowed to continue looting us? I don't think IBM invented monopolistic practices. I think that the consent decrees that IBM was forced into were probably valid requirements to keep the market > The main difference between MS and IBM is that MS is currently > in a position to dictate to the market. The key word is > "currently". IBM fell, so can Microsoft...and they probably > will. The question being when and how hard. So you are saying that IBM should not have been forced into their consent decree? Or are you saying that you agree that Microsoft should also be forced to compete on a more level playing field? Because it seems like you are saying that Microsoft shouldn't be forced to stop their practices. By the way IBM and Microsoft really play in very different markets. IBM only does about 11 or 12 billion a year in software. They do most of their revenue in hardware with a growing services market. Microsoft I believe gains most of their total income (which I think is up to about $12 billion right? is it higher now?) from software sales. So comparing their market positions makes as little sense as trying to justify the shoddy workmanship of Windows 95 by saying IBM got in trouble in the '60s. > I think the lesson to be learned is that is NOT the DOJ who will > dethrone Billy G but the market. And more likely, it will be a > missed paradigm shift. IBM missed the PC. What will MS miss? > It could be Java that dethrones them. It might be something > else. But it will happen. Microsoft misses every paradigm shift. OO programming, the internet, Java. All of these are concepts that Microsoft discarded until reality forced them to pay attention. However, the vast majority of Microsoft's customers do not bother to look beyond MS. If you only buy from MS, you don't know that other platforms have had better features, better reliability, better service, for years. Microsoft has demonstrated that unless forced by competition, they will not bother improving any products. Unfortunately, they now are in a position where it isn't possible to compete. That leaves a bleak future for the user who simply wants their desktop operating system to work as well as the ones provided by companies driven out of the market. > Regards, > Bob Crothers Bob, all of this seems as if you are eager to find some way to defend Microsoft. Perhaps you have advocated Microsoft products of operating systems to others in the past and criticism about the product strike against the advise you have given. No amount of arguing about Microsoft and IBM is going to make the OS any better. If I buy a pear and it tastes bad, I can bitch about how grapes spoil all I want, the pear still tastes bad. In this case, I know that Microsoft provides a product with less capabilities and less dependability than those products it competes with. I would like to see Microsoft forced to compete on a technical level so that the products that other vendors (like IBM and OS/400) will have opportunity to shine. There is no amount of discussion that will convince me it is a good thing for Microsoft to play monopoly with the market I work in. I hope I would feel that way even if their products were better than the others. I feel that Windows 95 and Windows NT are second rate products. I am an OS/2 user, and I am reluctant to have to give up the platform I have been using. More so, because I feel that I will be moving to a less stable OS, and that my moving to that OS will simply support a company that has demonstrated over and over that they intend to force the market to provide me with the least amount of choices. Okay, I sure rambled on there! Bottom line is, If Win95 is crashing the MS needs to improve it! If CA is crashing, IBM needs to improve it! If IBM doesn't make a 5250 client I like, I'll toss theirs out and buy someone elses! If Microsoft won't make an operating system I like... I'll shut and send them my money like everyone else. Chris Rehm Mr.AS400@ibm.net How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business? Get an AS/400. +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com". | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.