[PLUG-TALK] What Windows Is _Really_ Like

[Michael M.]

plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:
> To say that increased software choice would slows standardization and
> commoditization of computers is a very strong claim indeed.
>   

I didn't say it would going forward; I said I don't see how it could've 
happened without that in the past, at least nowhere nearly as quickly as 
it did.  Once you achieve commoditization, anything is possible.  But 
you need to get there first.

> I for one have a hard time accepting the notion that Linux, given that the
> information needed becomes more reality available, won't be made as compatible
> as Windows with most of the equipment on the market.  This argument should
> naturally be extended to other sufficiently popular OSS operating systems.  
> Arguing that monopolization is the only road to standardization doesn't 
> explain how Linux, or any other impressive collaborative works for that matter, 
> is what it is.  Despite being an open source phenomenon, Linux does have
> standardization efforts behind it.
>   

First, that wasn't my argument.  Second, your caveat "given that the 
information needed becomes more readily available" is something of a 
major stumbling block, isn't it?

> What about those who want to use Windows software without Microsoft Windows?
> This is especially interesting if you have Windows software for old versions
> of Windows that have huge gaping security holes.  I don't want to be forced
> to run something as heavy as Windows XP, newer than 98, for Warcraft II in a
> vmware environment.  Thing is, it's harder to secure Windows 98 for public 
> use than it is to add Shared Computer Toolkit to XP.
>   

What about them?  Are there enough of them to convince Blizzard that it 
should do anything more with Warcraft II than it has already done?  If 
not, it's a bit like complaining when your favorite TV show is canceled 
by the idiots at the network.  Yeah, it sucks, but they'll do what they 
think makes financial sense.  I wish there more episodes of "Farscape," 
but asking "What about those who want to watch more episodes of 
'Farscape'?" is moot.  We're out of luck.

>   
> Please, "no one worries about hardware compatibility with Windows," this 
> simply isn't true.  There is plenty of hardware that isn't worth dealing 
> with in any operating system environment where a lot of "Windows compatible
> hardware," doesn't work with the next version Microsoft comes out with.  I 
> have an Astra 1220P scanner for example, it doesn't work in Windows XP even
> though it works in 98 second edition just fine.  I have the same problem 
> with my USB silverlink cable for my TI-92 calculator, the Windows software 
> for it which works in 98 doesn't work in XP either.  How much 
> hardware/software compatibility overlap really exists between all the 
> currently available flavors of MS Windows and recently discontinued ones?
> Windows XP came out in 2002 and already Microsoft wants to replace it with
> something that probably won't support all of the hardware and software that
> currently works.  Four years isn't much of a lifetime.  I guess you
> buy a new computer when you start college and if all goes well you won't be
> able to buy new software or new hardware for it when you graduate.
>
> Perhaps the, "Windows means you don't worry about compatibility," argument 
> is a bit overstated.  How many readers have found that something which works 
> on 95, 98, or NT, either hardware or software that they still want to use,
> doesn't work in XP, etc?
>
>   

What's stopping UMAX from releasing XP drivers for the Astra 1220P?  
Aren't you blaming the wrong party for the situation?  How much hardware 
is obsoleted by the transition a Linux 2.2 kernel to 2.4, or 2.4 to 
2.6?   How much hardware support will be dropped in the next iteration 
of the kernel?  OS X is a closed platform, much more controllable by 
Apple than the x86 environment is by Microsoft, yet there is a ton of 
software out there that won't run on anything older than OS 10.3 
'Panther' (released in 2003), and quite a bit that won't run on anything 
older than 10.4 'Tiger' (released in 2005).  The iMac I bought for my 
Mom runs OS 10.2 'Jaguar,' and it is as no less obsolete than any 
computer running Windows 98, despite being released in 2002, four years 
after Microsoft released Windows 98.  In terms of the rate of 
obsolescence, you'll do a lot better with Microsoft than with Apple.  
Just how long do commercial Linux distributors support their releases?  
Ubuntu claims it will support Dapper for three years on the desktop, and 
that they are calling "long-term."  Microsoft has supported Windows 98 
for eight years, and you're complaining?

-- 
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson