__/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Wednesday 23 August 2006 04:51 \__
> On 22 Aug 2006 20:35:34 -0700, Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Again, there is an agenda. Microsoft even hired a team of professional
>>wintrolls in 1998, I think it was 15 people. They may have posted
>>under a number of different e-mail identities, and were often provided
>>with research to help trap Penquinistas (Linux advocates) in even the
>>most minor factoids, as a means to damage their credibility.
>
>>Some, like Erik Funkenbusch, have been at it for over 10 years.
>
> It goes back further than that. The wintrolls were at it in the os/2
> newsgroups at least as early as 1994 touting how incredibly wonderfull
> windows 95 having all the great things that windows 3.1 had plus all that
> amazing new technology that turned out to be lipstick on a pig.
Very true. See my reply to Rex. I'll quote again, for the archive's sake.
*smile*
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/gizmos/2005/11/2_grassroots_an.html
,----[ Quote ]
| "Some years back, Microsoft practiced a lot of dirty tricks using
| online mavens to go into forums and create Web sites extolling the virtues
| of Windows over OS/2. They were dubbed the Microsoft Munchkins, and it
| was obvious who they were and what they were up to. But their numbers
| and energy (and they way they joined forces with nonaligned dummies who
| liked to pile on) proved too much for IBM marketers, and Windows won the
| operating-system war through fifth-column tactics"
`----
Indeed, Windows was badly designed in what was a deadline-driven, careless
aggregation of features that led to a dependencies chaos. The code is
nowhere near manageable. Jim allchin said that the /majority/ of the code
needs to be thrown to the wastebin and reimplemented. Then, it need to get
mature and establish reliability/security (Symantec suggested so in a
report).
Now the price is being paid. It took 5-6 years to just add Aero interface to
the 'pig'. And the resource requirements penalty is /huge/ (XP had that
scalability problem too, but nothing on par). this would suggest a bad and
inefficient implementation atop an already-bug-riddled and slow
implementation (Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003, from which they started
in late 2005).
|
|
