Conspiracies
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| purplewizard Oct 15, 2007 6:21 AM EDT |
There seems to be a big effort to find the hand of MS behind these companies (as puppet master). All I see clearly is the only people who can make patent attacks are those who don't actually sell any real products. If MS or any other player tried directly suing then the counterstrike doomsday scenario of everyone firing suits for a long haul battle to the last companies standing would ensue. But IP companies, they are like super powered orbital laser platforms, delivering pin point attacks whilst sitting in another dimension immune to current counter measures. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
>ll I see clearly is the only people who can make patent attacks are those who don't actually sell any real products. Nah. Most patents are owned by companies who produce real products. |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
In the case of the IP Innovation suit againt RH/novell there's a reasonable case one can make to think that Microsoft could possibly have a hand in it. In the Groklaw article it mentions that IP innovation is owned by a holding company called Acacia Technologies. There's a press release out that reads thus: "Acacia Technologies Names Brad Brunell, Former Microsoft General Manager, Intellectual Property Licensing, to Management Team"... the date is 1 October. Certainly not a smoking gun, but enough to raise suspicion. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
>Former "Former" is an important word. How many major IT companies don't have some former Microsoft folks at them? For example, you are aware that the head of security for Mozilla previously held a similar post at Microsoft, right? |
| jacog Oct 15, 2007 7:03 AM EDT |
Your point? |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
>Your point? Sigh. Let's make it simpler still: Bill Gates drinks water. The people at company B drink water. Ah ha!! I'll bet Microsoft is behind company B's actions! |
| number6x Oct 15, 2007 8:31 AM EDT |
Acacia has sued Microsoft, and Microsoft settled before going to Court. So at first glance many would jump to the conclusion that Microsoft would consider Acacia an 'enemy' of Microsoft.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1171360978084
(references acacia suing MS grep for 'Microsoft' about midway through) Microsoft lists Google as its number 1 enemy right now. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39286857,0... (remeber that part of Google's success is due to its use of Linux instead of Microsoft) Of course we also know how Microsoft reacts when it loses talent to enemies like Google: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.... Yes this is the chair throwing "I'll sue you" Ballmer's reaction to Microsoft talent going to enemies. However there was no such negative reaction when Microsoft Legal IP talent left for an enemy that has already struck at Microsoft. http://www.nsti.org/press/PRshow.html?id=2099 http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071001/20071001005590.html?.v=1 Why not? My conclusion. This is the business version of 'Embrace and Extend'. Microsoft has turned a foe, Acacia, into an ally in its fight against FOSS. Think about it. A patent troll who makes its living suing big companies and settling for 'get lost' money hires away two Microsoft Vice Presidents with intimate knowledge of the software giants IP infrastructure. This should make Acacia an incredible threat to Microsoft. These guys could transform Acacia into an incredibly efficient feeder off the Microsoft trough. Like some enourmous legal version of a blood sucking parasite. Ballmer should have been throwing whole sectionals when these guys defected to Acacia. Not a peep. Why? Because, even with all this new found talent that should make Microsoft a sitting duck for Acacia, Acacia attacks Linux distributors instead. Fancy that! |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
>My conclusion. This is the business version of 'Embrace and Extend'. Based on what, exactly? Lawyers leave companies and firms all of the time. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft is a "technology" company, not a law firm. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 15, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
> Microsoft is a "technology" company, not a law firm. On paper, yeah. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 15, 2007 8:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft is a "technology" company, not a law firm. Buahahahaha. Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh! :-) |
| number6x Oct 15, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
Ex Microsoft executives have left MS and joined Acacia. This makes sense from Acacia's POV because these executives should improve the firms ability to extract settlements from the biggest fish in the pond, Microsoft. But instead of going after the big fish it is now even better equipped fight, it goes after Linux distributors who are minnows. This is the pattern that Microsoft has followed in its technology wing for years. Buy out or co-opt competitors. Microsoft has not bought out Acacia, but why is Acacia attacking small fries instead of going for the gold? Have they been embraced? If Acacia's goal is to settle before going to Court in order to maximize the return on their dollar, why target small firms who fight back instead of big rich firms who settle when a lawyer says "Boo"? Acacia has gotten new executives and changed its spots. It now swims upstream and looks like it is headed for a fight that could get its lucrative patents overturned. Why the change of course from a, so far, successful business model? Although The SCO Group was never successful, when they decided to sue their own customers they sealed their fate. There was no benefit to the SCO Group for the suicidal course it took. Why would Acacia risk the validity of its only source of income on what can only be a small potatoes settlement from little teeny tiny Linux distributors with razor thin profit margins? Especially when they now have the kind of inside knowledge that should make Microsoft a much better target? |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 9:06 AM EDT |
>Microsoft has not bought out Acacia, but why is Acacia attacking small fries instead of going for the gold? Ummm...maybe they were paying attention when SCO went for the gold. >Especially when they now have the kind of inside knowledge that should make Microsoft a much better target? Only if there is something to sue them for. BTW, there is a danger for the Acacia folks who served as Microsoft attorneys. It's called attorney-client privilege. They must step very carefully in any dealings with their old firm. |
| number6x Oct 15, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
They were not attorneys for Microsoft. They were Employees of Microsoft. Although Mr. Taub has a J.D. from Harvard, he was director of strategic alliances at Microsoft. Brad Brunell is not a J.D. but at Microsoft was: Quoting:"Mr. Brunell, as General Manager, Intellectual Property Licensing, was responsible for inbound and outbound patent licensing. He created and managed a team of negotiation, financial and legal experts which developed outbound intellectual property licensing programs and brought in intellectual property via acquisitions, strategic partnerships and licensing." Read my linked articles for details. Why did Microsoft protest when Kai-Fu Lee defected to the enemy Google? They sued Google charging that Professor Lee's intimate knowledge of Microsoft Business practices could be used to aid Microsoft's enemy Google. However, Microsoft did not sue Acacia when when employees defected there? Acacia has sued Microsoft they are an enemy too. Look at these guys career descriptions: Strategic alliances and patent licensing With this as their background, why should you be surprised if people think about things like strategy, alliances, and patent licensing between Acacia and Microsoft? It seems natural given the backgrounds of the executives involved, and the behavior ( compared to the normal recorded behavior) of the companies involved. When this happened before Microsoft reacted differently. Chairs and lawsuits started flying. Acacia knows that software patents now have to be non-obvious and there is a greater threat of getting them invalidated, but has chosen to back a couple of aggressive feisty companies into a corner instead of targeting easier prey. You're right that this is speculation on my part, but I feel justified in my thoughts (a rare event). |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
>You're right that this is speculation on my part, but I feel justified in my thoughts (a rare event). It's hard to argue with you there. Yes it is speculation and you certainly seem to feel justified. |
| number6x Oct 15, 2007 9:54 AM EDT |
You forgot to add a rim shot at the end Shelley Berman |
| hkwint Oct 15, 2007 10:20 AM EDT |
Okay, so Microsoft takes a license on Acacia patents by means of a settlement, shortly after that Acacia sues Novell for IP infringement. A while before, Microsoft took licenses on SCO copyright, shortly after that SCO sues Novell for IP infringement. In this case, not even one old Microsoft-employee had to move over to SCO (AFAIK). So there's a good reason somebody would feel those 'conspiracy' thoughts are justified. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 10:32 AM EDT |
>So there's a good reason somebody would feel those 'conspiracy' thoughts are justified. And like all good conspiracy theorists, you don't wonder if it makes any sense. Here's a strange thought for you: Acacia has been suing everybody. They have sued Intel. They have sued Texas Instruments. They have sued Microsoft. They have sued online porn sites. Maybe they are suing Red Hat, Novell, etc because they have already sued everybody else. Suing is what they do. That might also explain the Microsoft defections. Having been on the wrong side of Acacia, perhaps they saw big old $$$ signs in being on the right side. That's just speculation on my part, but seems at least as reasonable as yours. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 15, 2007 11:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's just speculation on my part, but seems at least as reasonable as yours. Sorry Dino, but your explanation just leaves far too much to chance and coincidence. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9796697-16.html |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
>Sorry Dino, but your explanation just leaves far too much to chance and coincidence. That's entirely possible. |
| tracyanne Oct 15, 2007 8:19 PM EDT |
@ Dino I think number6x explained on what the assumption was basedQuoting:Think about it. A patent troll who makes its living suing big companies and settling for 'get lost' money hires away two Microsoft Vice Presidents with intimate knowledge of the software giants IP infrastructure. This should make Acacia an incredible threat to Microsoft. These guys could transform Acacia into an incredibly efficient feeder off the Microsoft trough. |
| dinotrac Oct 15, 2007 8:38 PM EDT |
>This should make Acacia an incredible threat to Microsoft. Except that he doesn't say WHY. He simply assumes that Microsoft is using Acacia technology without a license. He also assumes that Acacia is unaware of Microsoft's litigious history -- they tend to fight everything to the bitter end rather than settle early. If the patents in question are software patents, given the Supreme Court's new standards on novelty, a well-financed hitter like Microsoft might be the very last company you want to attack head-on, as they would have the resources to challenge your patents. A big software company without patents still has its software. A patent troll without patents has stories to tell on the bread line. |
| salparadise Oct 15, 2007 10:45 PM EDT |
It's obvious that when any one tries to sue a Linux company that the first response is to look for the hand of MS. After all, it's not like they haven't tried before.
It's also true that they've used questionable methods to attempt to hide their role in such cases. So, forgive us for being suspicious, but, it's their own damned fault. Who benefits from Novell and RedHat being tied up in court? |
| gus3 Oct 15, 2007 11:34 PM EDT |
I speculated early on that Microsoft was behind The SCO Group's lawsuits (no link, it has my real name on it). When BayStar's involvement was revealed, I felt very vindicated. This time, we have not just Microsoft's sock-puppet history, but also the curious timing of Steve Ballmer's comments about "patent infringement in Linux". As number6x said: Quoting:Ballmer should have been throwing whole sectionals when these guys defected to Acacia.Only it wasn't exactly "not a peep." It looks to me entirely like Steve Ballmer is calling the shots, and his "patent infringement" comments were the first shot across the bow. [edit: fixed BayStar; it wasn't the Canopy Group] |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 16, 2007 9:05 AM EDT |
> Steve Ballmer is calling the shots, and his "patent infringement" comments were the first shot across the bow. Arrogance. He couldn't keep his mouth shut for another week and let the events he helped put in motion to develop. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. For my part, it will have to be proven that Microsoft is _not_ working the strings. As has been asked before, "Who benefits?" Microsoft is in serious trouble. They know it. If they _weren't_ doing everything they could, above and below board, I would be looking for the hidden dagger. They have too much to lose not to take every action. Sadly, the only action that could save Microsoft is the one thing they will not do: Dump software and become a holding company for several information service divisions supporting old Microsoft installation, and investing all that wonderful cash in real money making businesses. Like arms smuggling. |
| number6x Oct 16, 2007 9:29 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson, Microsoft is actually in a pretty good position. If they would just wake up and realize it they would be much better off. Instead they are trying to follow some business model that doesn't truly fit reality. Think of Apple. There was a time in the late 70's to early 80's when Apple was the market leader in Micro-computers. The term personal computers was not widely used until the 80's. Microsoft was still living on the South East side of Albuquerque and wasn't even selling MS-DOS yet. However the micro-computer market was small. It took Apple three or four years to sell its first million computers. By the mid 90's Apple was floundering and Steve "reality distortion" Jobs re-took control. He noticed that Apple was selling millions of computers per quarter, many more than they sold per year when they were the market leader. He cut all non-profitable divisions. He concentrated on the core business. His plan was for Apple to make products 'people wanted to buy'. The company is doing well now. They have even been able to introduce new products and services to market. Microsoft is stuck in a business model where they think they have to control the market in order to continue their existence. They don't. They just have to go back to making products people want to buy. Who knows, twenty years from now Microsoft may only have five or ten percent market share, and be selling twice as many copies of Windows. As long as they are able to produce and sell the products for more than it costs to make them, they'll be OK. They just don't know that. |
| dinotrac Oct 16, 2007 9:59 AM EDT |
>They just have to go back to making products people want to buy. Shhhh.... That will get you branded a troll around here. Folks in these parts think that Microsoft used its monopoly to become a monopoly and never did anything people wanted. Never mind that their cheap imitation of a Mac was exactly that: a cheap imitation. Not only that, it ran the DOS software they were still using. What a deal! You are, however, correct that Microsoft needs to go through the same kind of A-Ha! moment that IBM went through to pull out of its 90s funk. There really is life after monopoly if you can just figure it out. Of course, Microsoft is not IBM and does not have its long history of smart managers. |
| salparadise Oct 16, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
Because they don't do this... making products people want to buy. They have to do this... control the market in order to continue their existence. To this day I completely fail to understand why Vista comes on a DVD, contains nothing that isn't on every other OS they've released and when installed, takes up more space than Linux with all the dev tools added with KDE, Gnome and Open Office on top. I don't see them being in a good position, I see them more like Wily Coyote in the roadrunner cartoons. Dedicated but fundamentally stupid. So locked into the "Microsoft way" as to be unable to adapt. Vista really shows this. It's a 3rd rate copy of what everyone else is already doing better than Vista can and is so overpriced as to be a joke. The fact that such a behemoth of an organisation hasn't ground to a halt and fallen over is testament to inertia rather than business acumen. No one likes a bully and eventually all bullies get smacked down. Roll on the day... |
| dinotrac Oct 16, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
>The fact that such a behemoth of an organisation hasn't ground to a halt Are you sure that it hasn't? There were lots of stories during Vista's development of multiple approval levels to get the simplest feature signed off and a process where too many chiefs frustrated too many Indians through too many layers of pointless organization. The end result seems to support that position. |
| gus3 Oct 16, 2007 10:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:Never mind that their cheap imitation of a Mac was exactly that: a cheap imitation.IIRC, Michael A. Hiltzik made the point in Dealers of Lightning that both Apple and Microsoft "stole" the GUI idea from Xerox PARC, independently of each other. |
| dinotrac Oct 16, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
>independently of each other. Not exactly. Both may have seen the PARC stuff independently, but Microsoft developers were among the first Mac developers -- don't forget that Excel and Word for Windows actually started out as Mac apps. Bill Gates was well aware of the upcoming Mac. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 16, 2007 1:25 PM EDT |
> Microsoft is actually in a pretty good position. If they would just wake up and realize it they would be much better off. Instead they are trying to follow some business model that doesn't truly fit reality. Exactly. Microsoft is in serious trouble. Their only two profitable lines, Office and Windows, are now commodity products for which MS is still trying to charge a monopoly price. Apple gets around this by packaging both hardware and software. It is a 100% monopoly, but no one complains. > Bill Gates was well aware of the upcoming Mac. There was a bumper sticker, "Win95 = Mac89". System 6.8, with the full color extensions, pretty much did match Win95. Quicktime was shipped in 1992, long before Microsoft put out their media player. Yep, Microsoft made software for micro-computers. I saw Win95 for the Alpha. But then MS decided that everything had to run on Windows and only Windows (except Office for the Mac to placate the government polypragmatoi). If MS had offered Office for Linux, Office for BSD, I cannot imagine what kinds of $B they'd have in the bank now. Too late, that ship has sailed. |
| number6x Oct 16, 2007 1:36 PM EDT |
micro-computers was the generic name for home computers before IBM started using the term personal computer. We used to call all those old CP/M and apple ][ machines 'micro-computers'. Microsoft made a couple of BASIC compilers, a flight simulator game and little boxes that counted cars when they drove over a rubber hose back then. I was in college a few miles South of Albuquerque when Paul Allen was still in charge and MITS (ALTAIR) was his biggest customer. |
| wjl Oct 17, 2007 6:54 AM EDT |
Wow. Those were the days... I remember my old C64, which I re-programmed to show a green font on a black background, and I wished to have an 80-character display instead of my 14" TV. I saw the Apple2, and machines running CP/M, and I also later (with my first 286 IBM PS/2) saw really innovative stuff like Ashton Tate's Framework2, or GEM on the Atari, or the Amiga OS. Nevertheless, when I saw the first versions of Windows, i thought: "That's it! That will blow away the market and become the dominant system!" So long before we had the clickable web, I wrote my first articles about it, and that way I maybe even helped promoting it. These "articles" were sent to BBS systems, and distributed over the Usenet. These days are over. Now my machine here has 1,000 times the RAM, 12,000 times the size of the hard disk, and I don't know how many more CPU cycles, and still it wouldn't really be enough for Vista. Plus I wanted to move away from these silly EULAs years ago, so I changed to SuSE, then Red Hat, then FreeBSD, then SuSE again (because I had that on a remote server as well), then Gentoo, and finally Debian. Since then, I did not waste a single moment ever of thinking to move back. As for the Xerox Parc issues - yes, I've heard about them. Apple stole the mouse pointer, and both Apple and Microsoft the GUI. IANAL, and I don't know how they settled it, and today, I couldn't care less. As for the current suing of Red Hat and Novell because of exactly that GUI - AFAIK it's a question of showing multiple desktops in X11 - I think that it's a problem for the X11 developers, and so for all of us. But it should be a problem which could be settled, even without money. If someone really has a patent on this, then IMHO that should lead to the ultimate question whether the current patent system makes sense or not. And this has exactly nothing to do with neither Red Hat, nor with Novell. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 6:58 AM EDT |
>And this has exactly nothing to do with neither Red Hat, nor with Novell. Well, no more so than anybody else who deals in software. |
| number6x Oct 17, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
When I saw the first versions of Windows, I thought "That's It? You can't even re-size or move a window!" Windows wasn't even stable until v2.8. But Windows2.x was still just a program launcher for DOS. It competed against the DOSSHELL and Norton Commander programs, but Windows cost more, used more of your precious and costly memory, and gave you less functionality. Windows 3.0 was the first with an actual API. People could start writing 'Windows' programs now. With Windows 3.1 in 1991, The Windows 3.0 API became stable. Windows 3.1 was probably the best bang for the buck Microsoft ever produced. After that its been pretty much downhill with the exception, maybe, of Win NT 3.51. |
| jacog Oct 17, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
Windows 1.0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk (ok, I posted this link in another thread also...I'l quit it now, I promise) |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
>Windows 3.0 was the first with an actual API. People could start writing 'Windows' programs now. No, that's not true. People could write Windows programs from the very start, although the original Windows API amounted to little more than a toolkit to let Mac apps be ported to PCs more easily. Windows 3.0 was the first commercially significant Windows because it could support virtual memory and could multitask DOS programs by exploiting the 386 to a greater degree than Windows/386 did. It was funny..DOS multitasking was actually better than Windows multitasking because Windows apps multitasked on a cooperative basis whereas DOS apps were sliced by the OS. |
| number6x Oct 17, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
dino, Thanks for the clarification! jacog, How could I have forgotten about Reversi! |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
I bought a copy of Microsoft Game Pack for Win3.1, with BattleZone, Centipede, and a couple of other things. Silly, I still have it installed on my Wife's machine here. Far better games than come in Windows, and the single 1.4M floppy disk is still readable. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 9:56 AM EDT |
Bob - I'm often amazed when I go back and look at some of the old games. Less emphasis on amazing graphics, more emphasis on fun. And, of course, they don't need a Cray to run. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
> And, of course, they don't need a Cray to run. Hahaha, nor does Microsoft go back and revisit. When one won Solitare on Windows 3.1, one was given the reward of seeing the cards hop down and bounce, one by one. Bounce, bounce, bounce, and off. But that routine was not timed by a clock in the software. It was left to take as much time as it took to draw the graphics of the card moving, which on a 386-33 was a nice, smooth bouncing. On a Pentium 100, it went by quite a bit (imagine, maybe 3 times as fast?) quicker. Now, on gigahertz machines, one cannot see the individual cards, and the "prize" is over seemingly before it's even begun. Yet, BattleZone and the other Game Pack games still work at exactly the same speed they did in 1991 (even if they do take up only a small portion of the screen). Obviously, those games were not actually written by Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
>Obviously, those games were not actually written by Microsoft. Cold. Plus, you ignore the possibility of being written by Microsoft developers who were later fired for unacceptable competence. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 17, 2007 11:06 AM EDT |
Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 11:12 AM EDT |
>Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore. You predicting a win by the Greens? Or are you forgetting that Bill Gates is a well-connected Democrat? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
> Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore. Considering the causes that have carefully been fundedto play the political by BG&Co after being reminded to play the political game by the last prosecution, I wouldn't put much confidence in a change in party. Smart money backs both sides in a race. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 11:39 AM EDT |
>Smart money backs both sides in a race. Yeah. I think winning is primarily a race to be the ones getting 60 instead of 40. |
| salparadise Oct 17, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore. I don't live in the US and even I know that's unlikely. There is no difference worth talking about between either party. You vote for personalities not policies. It's the same over here in the UK. Sure there are minor differences but essentially, on all policies that matter, you'd have a hard time getting a cigarette paper between them. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
> you'd have a hard time getting a cigarette paper between them. Which is why it's so hard to get an impeachment. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 12:52 PM EDT |
>Which is why it's so hard to get an impeachment. OTOH, if they are using those cigarette papers, it might explain some of the legislation we get... |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 17, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Windows 1.0: HYPERLINK@www.youtube.com Hehehe. I actually have Windows 1.21 here, complete with dead-tree manual. It's two 5.25" SS SD floppies. |
| techiem2 Oct 17, 2007 1:26 PM EDT |
I have a working XT stashed in the basement with DOS 3.01 and Windows 1.03 as I recall. haha |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 17, 2007 1:30 PM EDT |
Hehe. Mine came with an XT and DOS 3 as well. One of those big Tulip-brand boxes. Dos came with a dead-tree manual as well, with 50% of it dedicated to GW-Basic. That's how I taught myself how to program. The XT lasted for ages. The PC after that was a Pentium 100 Mhz running Win95. I've never, ever used Win 3.x. I just skipped that part of history :-) |
| NoDough Oct 17, 2007 1:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:It was funny..DOS multitasking was actually better than Windows multitasking because Windows apps multitasked on a cooperative basis whereas DOS apps were sliced by the OS.What brand/version of DOS was that? Neither MS-DOS nor PC-DOS had multitasking built-in. The only way to get close to multitasking was by adding QEMU (if I recall correctly) or some such. I make this point all the time... The heritage of Unix and Unix like operating systems is a system designed for multiple users running multiple programs interfacing with multiple terminals and ouputting to multiple peripherals. The heritage of MS Windows is DOS; an OS designed for one user with one monitor and one keyboard running one program connected to one printer. Is it any wonder the former is better than the latter? |
| jdixon Oct 17, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
> What brand/version of DOS was that? Neither MS-DOS nor PC-DOS had multitasking built-in. He meant DOS multi-tasking under Windows. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
>He meant DOS multi-tasking under Windows. Yes. Windows 3.0 was able to pre-emptively multi-task DOS apps. DOS itself knew nothing about what was going on. |
| NoDough Oct 17, 2007 4:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes. Windows 3.0 was able to pre-emptively multi-task DOS apps. DOS itself knew nothing about what was going on.That makes sense. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!