From: icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Why many hate MicroSoft (was Re: NextStep 486 and misc)
Keywords: Unix Windows NT
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:38:51 GMT
Organization: Montana State University, Dept. of Computer Science, Bozeman MT 59717

In article <SXMRP.35.0@orca.alaska.edu> SXMRP@orca.alaska.edu (Michael R. Platzke) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.081231.25228@coe.montana.edu> icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) writes:
>>From: icsu8053@cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt)
>>Subject: Re: NextStep 486 and misc. (was Re: Stability of Next...)
>>Keywords: Unix Windows NT
>>Date: 26 Aug 92 08:12:31 GMT

[Stuff about multiuser capabilities hosed]

>>I think that people will be disappointed when they see how NT performs.
>>MicroSloth may be doing itself a disservice by claiming that it will run
>>acceptably on any system slower that a 486/33 EISA w/16M RAM & 400MB hard
>>drive.  This has been many people's reaction to OS/2 - "OS/2 is too slow 
>>compared with DOS and it takes up all of my 120MB hard drive."
>
>I have a problem with people who want DOS performance on a multitasking,
>multiuser GUI based OS.  They also tend to want to run it on their 1982
>IBM PC.  Yes, NT will require more hardware, suprise, suprise suprise.
>Are'nt the hardware requirements for NT less than for NS486? 

That's what I'm getting at.  They *should* both have the same requirements.
Except, perhaps, for the higher graphics performance necessary to run
Display Postscript (localbus or EISA VGA graphics).  But MicroSoft isn't
saying so - NeXT is.

>It still is
>unfair to condemm the performance of NT yet seeing as it has not even gone
>into beta yet.  For what its worth, the 32 bit windows is supposed to be
>fairly snappy, and the win16 and Dos stuff has yet to be fully debugged.

I'm not condeming it.  I said that it would be slower than DOS which is
obvious.  I think that it will require about the same hardware as OS/2.

>>It's a nasty situation: Either it's too slow or not innovative enough to be
>>worth switching to.  Hopefully, NeXTStep 486 is innovative *enough*.  Perhaps
>>NT as well - but from MicroSoft...well see.
>
>I'm just curious, what is your beef against MS.  It seems that everyone on
>the internet has one.  My experience with MS programs, paticularly windows
>programs, have been excellent.  DOS was not horrible for the timeframe it
>was released in.  OS/2...well even Steve Jobs had his Lisa.  If you prefer
>to start another thread or reply in e-mail, I would be interested (The people
>on this .advocacy group seem to be a hell of a lot more calm and reasonable
>than the pro-OS/2 groups).

Sure, I use Windows all the time with AutoCAD and ToolBook.  It's works
pretty good on a 486/33.

It's not their programs so much as their tactics.  Although I think DOS 
reeks of a static design.  It has way too many inherent limitations.

I think the think what bothers me is that Microsoft is like the IBM of 
software; and in more ways than one.  They don't really deserve to control
the software market, yet they do.  They own it through marketing and glitz -
not innovation.  The thing that *really* bothers me is the 
it-hasn't-been-done-'till-Microsoft-has-done-it mentality that many people
have.  I don't know whether to blame this on Microsoft or the idiots who
believe it.


-- 
 Craig Pratt                                           icsu8053@cs.montana.edu
 Montana State University, Bozeman MT             gcp1070@msu.oscs.montana.edu
       "Chicken McNuggets: If they McCome from where I McThink they do, 
                 I don't want to McEat it!" - Jerry Seinfeld
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy