Re: Pirates of Silicon Valley

[John Cutright <john.cutright@alliedsignal.com>]

David wrote:

> In article <m_Le3.82$Ob7.1906@client>, !smentzer@ecom.net (Steve Mentzer)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>How can you say that Gates has kept quality very high...... Win98 was a
> >>2000+ bug fix of Win95 and Win2k a 5000 Bug fix of Win98. That's very  high
> >>quality????? You are easily pleased.
> >>
> >
> > Repeat after me:  I believe all the media hype I hear. I am a drone. I believe
> > all the media hype I hear.
> >
> > BTW: Yes, there were bugfixes in Win98, but there was also a TON of new
> > functionality. Look under the hood and you will see...
> >
> > Win2k is a 5000 bug fix of Win98?? Hey moron! Win2k uses the NT kernel/code.
> It
> > is basically WinNT 4.0 with all the features of Win98. Win98 and Win2k do not
> > share the same lineage or code base.... understand???
>
> Sure I understand..... (aren't we getting a bit het up here..) My point
> is/was that each time Microsoft releases a new version of their "OS", it
> introduces more bugs than it fixes..... true!
>
> So what that Win2k is not a direct upgrade of Win98, that is irrelevant. You
> miss the point again. The fact is that they have to address over 5000 things
> from Win98's functionality in order to bring it to a reasonable standard
> whatever kernel or code they are going to use. EVERY software developer
> needs to release bug fixes, I do not deny that, Apple are no different, but
> there are degrees of acceptability that Microsoft run over rough-shod, in
> order to get their products in the market place. Someone in this thread said
> that the MS philosophy was to release a first version with all the bugs and
> improve on it so that by the third version it was a clean efficient program.
> (This was from one of the MS drones, not a Machead!). It says it all really.
> Win95, followed by Win98..... maybe Win2K WILL be a good OS.

I believe that he was referring to Microsoft's beta program.

>
> >
> >
> >>Whilst it is
> >>true that later versions of the MacOS tend to get bloated, this can be
> >>avoided with prudent installations, and it is only Microsoft programs that
> >>drop all sorts of crap in the system folder without an installer log file so
> >>you can find it all later.
> >
> > Bullshit. All reputable applications these days keep uninstaller logs so they
> > can remove any DLL they install into the system folders.
>
> I have never removed a program from a WIn95/98 system and had it all
> deleted.. ever. And the uninstall is supposed to delete registry entries,
> yet if you look after an uninstall they are usually still there.

It is true that all the dlls can/should not be removed because of code sharing.  But
it
will be able to remove application specific files.  Cannot comment on the
registry entries.  By the way, I believe that this sharing of code through common
dlls was a good concept, but in reality, there are a lot of inherent logistic
problems.

>
> >
> >
> >>In general, all the parts of an installation are
> >>placed with an application in its folder. I was asked by someone why there
> >>isn't and uninstaller bundled with the MacOS, and when I showed that that
> >>all you have to do to delete a program from the machine was to delete its
> >>folder and it preferences, they were amazed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You and I both know that this is NOT always the case with mac software. Stop
> > trying to whitewash the issue.
>
> I agree it is not the case with ALL Mac software, but it is more often the
> case than not, no need to whitewash an issue like that.
>
> Have a nice day!
> >
> >
> >
> > smentzer@pacbell.net
> >