Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?" • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#191

Post by ido » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 3:05 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #88

ssp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has made a bunch of very good products: - Windows 3.0 and 3.1 clearly hit exactly the sweet spot between DOS and OS/2 - Word and Excel were legitimately better than the competition (and still are, although there is not much competition left). - Internet Explorer 4 was so much better than Netscape 3 and 4 that it wasn't even funny - Windows 2000 and XP were very good operating systems

Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were pale imitations of the Mac OS of the time. 95 was the first "good enough", and it was still not the equal of System 7. For commodity hardware, they might have been the best available, but that's an adequacy criterion, not a "very good" criterion. Most of the others I have no disagreement with.

I used System 7 (and OS 7.x & 8.x after that) as well as win 95, and IMO win 95 wasn't just equal but in fact better than system 7.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#192

Post by dfox » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 3:15 PM UTC

walkon wrote: post #72

ssp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has made a bunch of very good products: - Windows 3.0 and 3.1 clearly hit exactly the sweet spot between DOS and OS/2 - Word and Excel were legitimately better than the competition (and still are, although there is not much competition left). - Internet Explorer 4 was so much better than Netscape 3 and 4 that it wasn't even funny - Windows 2000 and XP were very good operating systems

I agree, when you consider when products were released and compare it to similar offerings at those times, many Microsoft products are (or were) "decent". I would add these: - Windows 95: Not perfectly stable or technically very groundbreaking, but a good enough combination of usability and features to be considered decent in my mind and millions of others at the time. - IE6: great at the time. Some of the standards…

I view all 32bit PM versions of non-NT windows (ie. 386, 3.1, 9x...) as amazing technical feat, because they do something that almost should not be possible. Like ability to transparently use realmode DOS drivers from windows programs and vice versa (althought at huge performance and stability penalty).

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#193

Post by Anechoic » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 4:02 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #140

mrshoe wrote: post #8

If Gates had maintained a dictatorial death grip on his company like Steve Jobs has, MS probably could have made some decent products. It's one thing to yell at the people who made this system via email. It's quite another to never allow them to ship it in the first place .

Look at what Gates has done since he loosened his grip at MS. The Gates foundation's global health and global development programs have done tremendously important work to reduce human suffering in the 3rd world. Nothing Gates could do at MS would come even close to what he is doing now to make the world a better place. Compare to Steve Jobs who knows how to make wonderful shiny devices that cost more than what many…

Compare to Steve Jobs who knows how to make wonderful shiny devices that cost more than what many in the third world will make in a lifetime, but who has done very little when it comes to philanthropy.

I really hate this comparison for one reason: Gates has a lot more money than Jobs - IIRC the amount of Gates' wealth that he put toward the Gates Foundation is more than Jobs entire net worth.

There's also the matter of whether Jobs isn't pursuing philanthropy or if he's just not doing it publicly.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#194

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 4:43 PM UTC

WalterGR wrote: post #112

Seth_Kriticos wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are kidding, right? Powershell just does not conform to the original UNIX sh standards, which is why even console wizards will avoid it. Same reason why tcsh and ksh didn't get traction, and they even have merit to them. Who is the target audience? UNIX command line people certainly aren't. Then who, people that managed to learn VB Scripting host? That's just not how things work.

You are kidding, right? No. Who is the target audience? People who want to utilize its access to hundreds of administration tasks across most (all?) of Microsoft's server products, to automate administration tasks. EDIT to add: Same reason why tcsh and ksh didn't get traction, and they even have merit to them. I can't tell: is the implication here that Powershell doesn't have merit? I'm trying to understand.

[deleted]

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#195

Post by shadowsun7 » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 5:32 PM UTC

smokinn wrote: post #188

shadowsun7 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend that you sit behind a non-technical relative or friend, and watch them use Ubuntu without offering them any help . There are quite a number of things that they'd like to do that isn't clearly expressed - or even easily findable! - though Ubuntu's GUI. They will struggle with it for a bit. Plus: even if we set that aside, there will be certain bits of hardware you'll want to use that would require opening…

I recommend that you sit behind a non-technical relative or friend, and watch them use a Mac without offering them any help. There are quite a number of things that they'd like to do that isn't clearly expressed - or even easily findable! - though OSX's GUI. They will struggle with it for a bit. -- Really, it's just a learning curve and it's the same for any new OS. Most non-technical people don't have the habit of f…

Evidence != data. Evidence = data and/or examples and/or anecdotes. Evidence is also most effective when backed up with analysis/logic (otherwise you get ping-pong debating, where both sides toss counter-examples around, proving nothing)

Note too that I said some evidence.

>I think the whole "Apple just works" thing is majorly overblown.

I suppose the simplest way to prove this is to consider the alternative: of what other operating system, taking into account everything that a non-technical user needs, can this be said to be true? Perhaps it is not true of all our current operating systems, but if it is more preposterous to claim that Windows or Linux 'just works', then Apple takes the cake and my point is justified.

Whether it is overblown or not is not my concern - it is currently the best that we have, and I have to make do. Perhaps iPad-like devices would prove to be better, but that future is still two-three years away.

Anecdotal evidence seems to support this: I wince whenever I see the Macs my friends and family use - the desktop is cluttered beyond repair, the dock is stretched across the screen, and they don't know how to use various core features (expose, frontrow, etc). But they don't complain, and they don't ask me for as much help as they did before, and this is the only metric that matters to me.

I'm happy, they're happy. What's not to like?

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#196

Post by carussell » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 6:25 PM UTC

carussell wrote: post #172

sandipagr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only time I ever used IE was to download Firefox when I first installed windows 7. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. My experiences haS been great.

Only time I ever used IE was to download Firefox Next time use ftp.

Uh, all right? How dickish of me to suggest a way to forego using an application he or she doesn't like for even the one time that person feels he or she must.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#197

Post by purpledove » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 6:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #75

mrshoe wrote: post #8

If Gates had maintained a dictatorial death grip on his company like Steve Jobs has, MS probably could have made some decent products. It's one thing to yell at the people who made this system via email. It's quite another to never allow them to ship it in the first place .

Utterly unfair comparison. The Apple and Microsoft business models are so unlike each other it's almost inaccurate to say they're in the same business. Apple can get product quality to the point they do because they laser focus on a few profitable segments. Microsoft's business model --- not "what Steve Ballmer thinks they should be doing this month" but their underlying business model --- involves them serving 80+%…

It wasn't a comparison of companies, it was a rebuke of Microsoft's leadership. The criticism is certainly valid, and all the more convincing because Microsoft HAS shipped high-quality products, so they are CAPABLE of doing great work, they just get LAZY.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#198

Post by rbanffy » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 6:47 PM UTC

ido wrote: post #189

rbanffy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solaris 2.5 was a very solid OS and better than NT 3.5 in most respects unless a defining criteria for "better" is "runs well on PCs", which it didn't. OS/2 was also a good OS for x86 PCs. At least as good as NT, unless, again, you want it to run software designed for Windows.

I wasn't really into OS/2 but I concede that it was probably about as good as NT at the time. I would, however, much rather use NT 3.51 as a desktop OS than Solaris 2.5 with CDE and its 80s-style command line utilities (luckily it seems they are using GNU stuff nowadays?).

You always could get the GNU stuff and compile it yourself. My own installs felt very GNU-ish at that time.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#199

Post by jshen » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 7:29 PM UTC

Jkeg wrote: post #124

jshen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

riding people isn't the solution, the problem is usually structural. Take any product and there are 5 to 10 teams involved in it's development and they all push their own little pet ideas. Rarely is there ever a single leader with a single vision that is also involved in the day to day development and decision making. Instead the person that should do this does what you suggest, they swing in every once in a while, c…

Well yes. Microsoft is often said to have problems with teams competing internally (pointlessly), or just not working together. However, that's a management choice that can come from the top. If there's one thing a "Chief Software Architect" should do, it's make sure all software teams are in the habit of communicating and collaborating whenever possible. It doesn't seam like that happened here.

I think the right thing to do is recognize the extremely high cost of communication and collaboration and weigh that against the benefit.

Almost every manager I've known assumes that the cost of communication or collaboration is near zero while the cost of development is extremely high. Often, the cost of duplication development effort is lower than the cost of adding another communication and collaboration channel.

Re: Bill Gates: "Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?"

#200

Post by Nitramp » Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 9:07 PM UTC

wwortiz wrote: post #134

shadowsun7 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what his beef is with Microsoft Security Essentials, but I just tell my friends and family to get a Mac. It's too tiring keeping up with antivirus offerings, and constantly needing to clean up after their messes. I'd recommend Linux, to be honest, because it's a cheaper alternative. But because there's still no good way of using it without needing to open Terminal at some point - the Mac is, I suppose, a…

You can use ubuntu without opening the terminal, and have been able to for a while, the problem with linux is not the terminal it is whether or not the hardware is supported and software people need is supported.

Hardware support on Linux is a red herring. There are some few devices that don't work all that great, like some horrible sound chipsets and softmodems, plus the very latest in WiFi used to have problems (I think that's less of an issue nowadays).

Some years ago there was a project set up to fix those Linux hardware issues, and they effectively didn't do any work, because they couldn't find reasonable hardware that wasn't supported by Linux.

I have a (crappy) scanner that has no working drivers for any Windows beyond 98 and Mac OS beyond version 9, but it works just fine under Ubuntu/Linux. I haven't seen any mainstream, reasonable hardware that doesn't work under Linux for a long time. Really, from my perspective, hardware support under Linux is significantly better than under any other operating system.

Where it indeed gets spotty is the software to use the features of the hardware. E.g. Xsane rhymes a lot with insane, the various photo organiser tools are of varying quality, to say the least, and so on. Ubuntu is making progress, but there still are a lot of use cases where the GNU/Linux/Ubuntu desktop doesn't provide good alternatives.