Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:10:46 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:
The early versions of Excel did have very good compatibility. One cannot say that about OpenOffice, last time I looked it did not support VBA, VBA support was added in Open Office 2.x: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:
Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper product. What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware. Thus, Windows really had no significant competing product to be cheaper than. The hardware to run those Microsoft OS's was occasionally cheaper, but Microsoft had no great influence in that. stewart / w5net |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:35:41 +0200, noname wrote:
"Ralph Mowery" wrote: Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper product. What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware. SCO Xenix. Microsoft started Xenix *BEFORE* IBM arrived and bought MS BASIC. IBM wanted an operating system, so Bill Gates sent them to DRI for CP/M. When IBM and DRI couldn't agree on anything, IBM came back to Bill Gates. Bill knew that Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products had something called Q-DOS (quick and dirty operating system). QDOS was suppose to be a temporary kludge while waiting for DRI to deliver CP/M-86. PCDOS grew so quickly, the Xenix was put on the back burner for a while. Eventually, Xenix was licensed to SCO, IBM, and others. It was far more expensive than PCDOS or MSDOS but also far more useful and reliable. For example, Xenix had support for RAM above 1MByte, long before EMS/XMS arrived for PC-DOS. I still have customers running SCO Xenix 2.3.4. Xenix also had a rather fanatically loyal following. When SCO tried to promote Open Desktop as a Xenix replacement and proceeded to try and kill Xenix, the dealers almost rebelled. It took over 10 years for Xenix to fade away, mostly because of simple neglect. There were plenty of other Unix v.7 ports by other companies at the time (long before Linux). http://www.levenez.com/unix/ For example, IBM and DEC both sold Venix on their low end hardware in 1984. There were also a mess of general purpose non-Unix and non-DOS operating systems (not tied to hardware) released over the years. Minix, GEM, GEOS, QNX, Netware, OS/2 are the ones I can recall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_systems_timeline Most of the general purpose OS's were roughly in the same price range as MSDOS. Therefore, price was not a major factor in their demise. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
"noname" wrote in message ... "Ralph Mowery" wrote: Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper product. What cheaper product was that? After CP/M and similar OS's died decades ago, the earlier PC-DOS and later Windows were the only commercially distributed OS's available unbundled from hardware. Thus, Windows really had no significant competing product to be cheaper than. The hardware to run those Microsoft OS's was occasionally cheaper, but Microsoft had no great influence in that. stewart / w5net The very first operating systems were either DR or MS products. MS was cheeper than the DR product. Then MS incorporated softwear like Double Space (big lawsuit over that so win 3.11 came out ) Internet explorer is standard now. Pushed out many other internet programs. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: On Sun, 10 May 2009 20:10:46 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote: The early versions of Excel did have very good compatibility. One cannot say that about OpenOffice, last time I looked it did not support VBA, VBA support was added in Open Office 2.x: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA Thanks, that is good to know... I will try it out. 73 Owen |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there. I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software development system program into an open architecture. Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the hardware chips and that there was not much money to be made in microcomputer operating systems and computer boxes. Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the computer box. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:25:13 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there. I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software development system program into an open architecture. Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the hardware chips and that there was not much money to be made in microcomputer operating systems and computer boxes. Not exactly. Gary Kildall and others wrote some simple games for the 4004 that ran on what later became a development system. They tried to get Robert Noyce to sell it. Nope. Noyce thought there was more money in digital watches which Intel never produced. At the time (1971) nobody had the slightest idea of what to do with a general purpose microprocessor. Even the dynamic RAM business was almost an accident when Intel discovered they couldn't sell micros without the necessary glue chips and memory. In it first few year, Intel didn't have the slightest idea what they were going to manufacture. Somewhat later, he tried to hang some storage onto an MCS-4 chipset demo board with limited success in adapting his PL/M operating system. That morphed into CP/M in order to distinguish it from the Intel effort. There's probably something on the topic in the book "Fire in the Valley". Worth reading methinks: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927 Ouch. It seems to have become a collectors item. I think I paid $10 for my paperback edition. (Someone stole my hardback edition). At least the used copies are affordable. Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the computer box. Yep. I'm not sure they could have handled the rapid growth in too many areas. At the time, Intel's gross was growing about 40% per year, which is about at the limit of which they could fund growth with revenue and loans. To diversify into adjacent areas would have certainly been opportunistic, but would have drawn resources better spent on cranking out chips. Diversification through acquisition is safer. Craig Barrett tried unsuccessfully to diversify the company, while Paul Otellini sold off divisions and diversions. Intel does well with its core business, but not much elsewhere. Remember the Santa Clara bubble memory division (with the giant plastic bubble in place of a picture window in conference room)? That's where the term "economic bubble" may have originated. It's interesting to note that the general purpose operating systems that were *NOT* tied to a hardware platform have survived far longer than those attached to a manufacturers hardware. Apple OS/X is an exception in that it's 75% portable (Mach) Unix, and about 25% proprietary Apple. It would not have survived in it's original MacOS form. Well, OS/X is a somewhat portable operating system: http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook All this has something to do with antennas, although the connection currently escapes me. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:32:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in computers. It wasn't a sport that was invented for Microsoft, however. They came by it honestly. Yet, they're the most successful computah company in history. Arthur Anderson had the same reputation for bookkeeping; GM for building cars; GOP for ... well that's Noah's flood under the bridge. In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary hardware. Never heard of the IBM PC? They must be doing something right. This would only provoke the enumeration of companies listed above. In my never humble opinion, 99% or more of what MS releases is done correctly and works well. The 1% that doesn't is what we're all complaining about. 99% is actually pretty abysmal. Ma Bell could rightfully claim 5 9s (99.999%) for service generations ago. Software bugs that 1% of your user base encounters are evidence of incredible sloppiness. Having to guess (before you break the seal) which 1% is broken is like playing Russian roulette ever day for a year - and hoping to live to Christmas. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
Richard Clark wrote:
snip 99% is actually pretty abysmal. Ma Bell could rightfully claim 5 9s (99.999%) for service generations ago. Software bugs that 1% of your user base encounters are evidence of incredible sloppiness. snip 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC And those days are gone, but not the way you'd think. Current Ericsson cell switches in Europe run ERLANG, one of the successors of PLEX, and they are getting 11 9's or better. ERLANG is a very interesting language and has been released as open source. See http://erlang.org/ tom K0TAR |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful when using Excel
On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:41:31 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: ERLANG is a very interesting language and has been released as open source. See http://erlang.org/ Hi Tom, Tell me more (a quick synopsis). My group has been working on the Netflix Prize in Python. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
everyone better be careful while building those shortwave radios | Shortwave | |||
Be careful replying to off topic messages here! (La Site Communique) | Boatanchors | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | General | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | Scanner | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | Shortwave |