Windows 8...

It seems to go "one good, then one shit".
XP-old but ok
Vista - bug ridden
7 - ok
8 - apparently bug ridden?
The one before XP was shit. The one before that was ok... as I remember.

Gates is a prick. But so are Apple. And Android are just nosey bastards.
So whats the option? Linux which is shit.

I suppose it has to be MS 7 for comps, and Android for phones/tabs.

 

I think they stop upgrading XP next April. Which would mean it would be vulnerable to security probs. So I think its recommended everyone should upgrade to 7 or Vista or whatever.

Computers def made a step forward with XP. I remember my earliest MS ones... terrible.. : (

 

XP was good, Windows 95 and 98 were decent as well. What was before Windows 95... I think 3.1 or something?

 

Yeah 3.sthg I recall.
I think Millenium/2000 was a bit of a dud?

 

Win2k was very good IMHO.... WinME blows... XP was awesome... Vista blows... Win7 was good... I'm not buying a windows 8 machine yet... It's actually what made me decide I'd go with a tablet with android while windows works on a better os

 

Nov '85-Windows 1.0
Dec '87-Windows 2.0
May '88-Windows 2.10
March '89-Windows 2.11
May '90- Windows 3.0 (first introduction of what became the "classic" Windows GUI)
April '92- Windows 3.1 (first one to be widely adopted by the public)
Oct '92- Windows for Workgroups (first OS aimed specifically at the business class user)
July '93- Windows NT (new kernel and first networking/server OS using a GUI, prior to that Netware dominated with a command line interface.)
Nov '93- Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (a very solid and stable build, it dominated for quit some time and really opened Microsoft up in regards to the business network computing world and everyday office usage)
Sep '94- Windows NT 3.5
May '95- Windows NT 3.51
August '95- Windows 95 (funny, but the timeline I am using doesn't mention Win 95 A and Win 95 B? Win 95 A was the first release and it was HORRIBLE, I mean TRAGIC, so fucked up that a service pack update wouldn't work, they essentially reworked it from the ground up and the released Win 95 B, very quietly and stealthily. LOL)
Aug '96- Win NT 4.0
June '98- Win 98
May '99- Windows 98 Second Edition
Feb 2000- Windows 2000
Sept 2000- Windows ME ack2
Oct 2001- Windows XP
Oct 2001- Windows XP 64 bit (v2002)
Oct 2002- Windows XP Media Center Edition
March 2003- Windows XP 64 bit (v2003)
April 2003- Windows Server 2003
Sept 2004- Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004
Oct 2005- Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
April 2005- Windows XP Professional 64 bit
Dec 2005- Windows Server 2003 R2
Nov 2006- Windows Vista for Business
Jan 2007- Windows Vista Home
Nov 2007- Windows Home server
Feb 2008- Windows Server 2008
July 2007- Windows 7
Oct 2008- Windows Server 2008 R2
April 2011- Windows Home Server 2011
Sept 201- Windows Server 2012
Oct 2012- Windows 8
Oct 2012- Windows RT
Oct 2013- Windows 8.1
Oct 2013- Windows Server 2012 R2

and if you are interested in the predecessor, MS-DOS (Disk Operating System)
here you go;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_DOS_operating_systems

 

yup, that's the trend in everything nowadays, the public is used as the beta-test users.

I don't understand why? He didn't always employ the most honest or "legal" business practices, but name me a company as big that always plays by the rules. He did fuel a lot of innovation and created millions of jobs worldwide.
He hasn't had much of anything to do with the operation of Microsoft for about a decade and he and his wife are using thier money and influence to enact some rather good humanitarian and altruistic endeavors that even some countries can't put together or realize.

So why is he a prick again?

 

Well I mean a prick in relation to how Windows became the overwhelmingly monopolistic product. I recognise his talent, and also some of his endeavours outside of IT. But he didn't even invent the ideas. The product was often pretty poor. He squeezed better products and rivals out of existence. (Remember Netscape browser). He refused to let it be open source. But Windows was massively into data mining without any real consent from the users (ok not as bad as Google/Android). The product was incredibly expensive for what it was/is. Because he had an absolute strangehold on the market. Largely because corporate America allowed it.
It had terribly reliability problems, because there weere basically no rivals. Or rivals had been shunted out of existence, by improper means.

Its interesting that once he started losing monopoly lawsuits in the EU and US, we started seeing rivals appear. And MS itself had to improve its product.

So I think he was smart, but not some great inventor. Because even the Windows/icons concept had been done before. And similar op systems were already in existence. I compare him to Michael Dell. Dell was a crap product but had friends in the right places, so he became America's number one. Atleast Dell had credible rivals. Gates could do pretty much whatever he wanted. Gates was the product of lobbying, IMO. Just like Monsanto, Enron, Standard Oil etc etc.

And ultimately, it was the customers who pay for the Gates Foundation, not him. Its astonishing just how cheap a computer would have been if it wasn't for the price of the Windows that comes with it. Rather than enhance technology and advancement, there's a lot of experts who say he held it back. I mean, look at today vs 10 yrs ago. Much more choice, competition, better all around... apart from Gates himself!

If you look at the history, such an extreme monopoly should never have been allowed to happen. It just isn't healthy.

 

I understand and agree with some of what you say.
Melinda and the court cases made a HUGE change in him for sure.
But should Gates be held accountable because they was no real competitors in the market place at the time?
Sure they were other OS's around and sure Bill "borrowed" elements, specifically the mouse and GUI he "borrowed" from Apple who "borrowed" it from Zerox.
Plus of all the other OS's around, Gates seems to be the only one who managed to bring it to the mass market, so he should be chastised for being an astute and visionary business person? (well him and Paul Allen, can't forget Paul)
That type of shit went on all the time early on because nobody had nailed it down or even thought it would go any further than scientist labs, government and Universities, so technology/code was freely traded.

IBM paid for the development of DOS, then decided they didn't want it (then a couple years later paid to do it over in-house as IBM-DOS. Anybody ever use it? I did for about a year) and Gates (who wrote the original DOS for IBM) bought it from them because Gates envisioned common people using computers in their homes. Nobody else at the time saw that vision, except maybe Jobs a little, but Gates is the one who brought computers to the general public.

Then to blame the high prices of computers in the early days to being due to Windows is laughable and calls into question your knowledge concerning the hardware side of computers. Computers cost a shit ton of money back then because of poor manufacturing methods and limited facilities, Intel probably shit-canned 30% or more of the processors they made because they failed or didn't meet specs. In the early days computer component manufacture was a costly and wasteful endeavor, from the size of the traces that result in using more silicon, to the high level of failures at the manufacturing end.
Know why flat screens used to be extortionately priced just a decade ago and now can be had for pennies?

Due to developing manufacturing techniques, the fail rate of the screens was something like over 60% !!!!!!
The panels that did make it into a flat screen monitor/TV cost a fortune to pay for the other 60% of panels that failed QC.

So the price of technology had/has very little to do with the OS/software (unless you buy Macs, then just get a tube of KY at the same time) but everything to do with manufacturing technology.

I remember paying $100 MORE for a a 4megabyte 30 pin SIMM running at straight BUS speed than I did for 8 gigabytes of DDR running at 1066, all due to improvements in manufacturing techniques.

and no, it isn't the customers paying for the Gates foundation's work, it's Bill and Melinda Gates, they earned the money. Once the customers who they earned it from purchased the products, the money belonged to Bill.

and in the final analysis, Bill could always just buy an island and hoard his fortune like Scrooge McDuck, but he doesn't.

 

Yeah, I am not a fan of it either.. So pissed actually. I went and bought a copy of it, installed it on a brand new computer, then after I installed it it was saying I need to activate it with the key like I already did before and then wont activate it because the key has already been used... on that computer lol and every time I call the support line, no one answers lol So bullshit.. no way I am paying another $100+ for another key when I already paid for one lol

 

this is why I don't know what to do. I'm starting to hate the new Mac OSX and I wanted to switch back to windows, but the new windows sucks a thousand balls. I don't know where to turn...

I guess Linux, but it still has it's problems...