What other hardware/Technology is on the horizon?

[demalion]

No, I do not bring it up as if their success would have been guaranteed had it not been for Microsoft., I bring it up as if Microsoft's monopoly strategies directly destroyed the ability of BeOS to succeed by removing opportunities for that success to take place.

Is that not the same thing?

No.

Not trying to be overly dramatic by this example , but it is a pretty clear illustration:

If you were terminally ill, and the prognosis was you had 1 week to live, you are arguing that it does not matter if someone comes in and shoots you in your hospital bed.

You are asking me to prove that BeOS wasn't terminally ill when no one even made the prognosis, and in the process saying the smoking gun doesn't matter.

Again, if you think this had no impact on BeOS' success, and on why we didn't see that "Lindows PC except using BeOS" in an article such as this, please say so and why.

Well, I don't know if it had an impact on Be's success, because I don't even know if they tried it in the first place.

That question seems sort of silly: You are asking me if Be tried to target their OS at consumers. The counter-evidence to this focus that has been proposed so far is Be's focus on attracting developers. I ask you, in turn, do you think Be was trying to attract developers to sit and admire their OS, or to build up content to address Microsoft's advantage in this regard? In other words, why were they targetting developers?

It has been mentioned that Be could have done something like this Lindows on a low end PC to compete, and I am asking in turn how could they with this directly and purposefully anti-competitive Microsoft pricing penalty in place? In other words, this pricing penalty removed this option from them.

Hence, my question to you - do you know if they even tried to aim for that market?

Consumers? You are asking me as if there was another possibility. And I'm asking you to tell me what that possibility was. I don't have the Be site available anymore, but the monicker Multimedia OS in a time when Multimedia was the big focus of consumer personal computers seems to give a pretty solid indication.

But no, I don't have a list of whom Be contacted or of all of their initiatives. Do you, or is there some other reason you think this possibility is unlikely?
I do recall something about a deal with the Gap to promote BeWear or some such, would providing a link to that be enough indication of their intent to sell to consumers?

If creating or aiming for that market was not even part of Be's business strategy, then how could that have affected them?

Well, you blithely say that as if it makes any sense at all that they weren't. For what reason do you think this is the case?

If not, what exactly are you disagreeing with about what I said?

What I am disagreeing with is your claim that BeOS did not fail due to the quality of their products.

Have you ever used BeOS?!

The claim that is inherent in all of your arguments is that, as you said, "Microsoft doesn't need to compete on quality." While this is true to an extent due to their large established userbase, it isn't grounds to automatically assume that Microsoft never wins on quality.

Oh, I'm not proposing that Microsoft never wins on quality, but that their OS development specifically, and applications in some cases, either did not, or did because they hindered quality (such as stability and speed early on in Windows) of competing applications. This of course leaves room for argument that any specific application competed and won on quality, but my primary argument has been about the OS specifically.

When did I say "never"?

Your points assume that BeOS is, in fact, a better quality OS than Windows. And that if it had not been for the Microsoft monopoly, the OS which is obviously better in terms of quality (in your case, BeOS) should have 'won.' Many of the points you use to define BeOS as a better OS than Windows are all 'technical' qualities.

Indeed, I've had this argument before.

There other qualities to judge an OS by, such as applications available on the OS, the games people want to play, compatibility, etc.

These determinitions of quality are based on market and API control. Do you recall my comments about API specifications, and the anti-trust ruling requring API technical info to be released by Microsoft?

In any case, by this criteria, DOS was higher quality than Windows when it was first released...does that make sense to you? This is not to say DOS may not have offered more value to the consumer, but to arbitrarily substitute the term "quality" for this concept is just confusing the issue. To me it is just "proof by arbitrary equivalence", and I've really had my fill of that.

If you take these qualities into account, then is Windows not the better operating system for the majority? I think those qualities make it a better operating system. If you disagree, then lets leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Well, see above. Do you maintain that DOS was a higher quality OS than Windows when Windows was first released? If that sentiment makes sense to you, then I guess we really do have to agree to disagree. It is like saying a pinto is higher quality than cadillac on cinder blocks in a garage, ignoring the possibilities allowed by getting tires, filling the tank, opening the garage, and taking it for a ride. Does this example exhibit my view of the inconsisency of what you're saying, or should I try a different one?

-dksuiko (And damn it, I did it again. The last two 'guests' were me posting these messages, just forgetting to login. )

You didn't "do it again", it was just your turn to be victimized by the forum. Wave a rubber chicken head above the monitor before each time you post...it is working for me so far...

 

[dksuiko]

Have you ever used BeOS?!

No, I haven't - but where in my comment does that matter? Do I have to use it to know that it doesn't have the games I want to play and the applications I want to use? The ability to run the games and applications that I want is a quality I feel important in an operating system. If it can't run the things I want it to run, then there is no point in using that OS. Also, did you respond to that comment before reading the sentences that came after it? Because I'm sure you would've caught what I meant by saying that had you read them first.

When did I say "never"?

*sigh*

Well, see above. Do you maintain that DOS was a higher quality OS than Windows when Windows was first released?

No, I wouldn't say that DOS was a higher quality OS at the time of Windows release because Windows had backwards compatibility with DOS. You could still run those DOS programs while at the same time having the benefits Windows offered. In other words, Windows offered everything DOS did and more. I don't think you can say the same for BeOS, it may outdo Windows on the technical qualities, but what about the others? Anyway, I think we've spent enough time in this thread haven't we? Hopefully this will be my last post in the thread.

-dksuiko

 

[demalion]

Forgive the length, but you are causing me to repeat most of my other post because you chose not to address large portions of it.

Have you ever used BeOS?!

No, I haven't - but where in my comment does that matter?

It matters because of the seemingly random assertions you make about BeOS, its focus and quality. BTW, please don't reply just to this one sentence instead of the following paragraphs:

This reply of yours illustrates a frustrating behavior. This is one line out of paragraphs of my text, and you spend a paragraph responding to it and ignoring other text directly pertinent to my point. This is not productive. Here is some the text you ignored, and I ask you if perhaps it might have been slightly more productive to address this the first time around:

No, I do not bring it up as if their success would have been guaranteed had it not been for Microsoft., I bring it up as if Microsoft's monopoly strategies directly destroyed the ability of BeOS to succeed by removing opportunities for that success to take place.

Is that not the same thing?

No.

Not trying to be overly dramatic by this example , but it is a pretty clear illustration:

If you were terminally ill, and the prognosis was you had 1 week to live, you are arguing that it does not matter if someone comes in and shoots you in your hospital bed.

You are asking me to prove that BeOS wasn't terminally ill when no one even made the prognosis, and in the process saying the smoking gun doesn't matter.

Are you conceding to my example? If you are, why didn't you say so and save me the trouble of retyping it and asking you? If you are not, why didn't you quote it and address why not? None of your other text in this post does.

Another example:

Again, if you think this had no impact on BeOS' success, and on why we didn't see that "Lindows PC except using BeOS" in an article such as this, please say so and why.

Well, I don't know if it had an impact on Be's success, because I don't even know if they tried it in the first place.

That question seems sort of silly: You are asking me if Be tried to target their OS at consumers. The counter-evidence to this focus that has been proposed so far is Be's focus on attracting developers. I ask you, in turn, do you think Be was trying to attract developers to sit and admire their OS, or to build up content to address Microsoft's advantage in this regard? In other words, why were they targetting developers?

It has been mentioned that Be could have done something like this Lindows on a low end PC to compete, and I am asking in turn how could they with this directly and purposefully anti-competitive Microsoft pricing penalty in place? In other words, this pricing penalty removed this option from them.

Why do you ignore this text, and then spend a paragraph responding to the text you did? Is it not relevant to statement you made? Would not discussing this (including your quoted text) move us forward? Why did you instead move us sideways?

Do I have to use it to know that it doesn't have the games I want to play and the applications I want to use?

Well, you have a concern with my example, and you word it as if Windows would have been a lower quality OS than DOS if it didn't have compatibility. So, I offer you another example...was Windows NT a lower quality OS than Windows 3.11 or DOS? It had serious issues with the compatibility with games and applications you maintain invalidate my example.

If your answer is based on it using more memory and being slower, say so, and then I offer you the question "what if it used less memory and was faster, would it still be a lower quality OS then?". Of course, if you maintain that because of the "incompatibility and less compatible content", it would have been lower quality, you have reached the source of our disagreement, and why I say you are using "quality" in a confusing and arbitrary way. Would substituting "excellence" clear it up for you?

And here is a parallel I used by way of illustration...addressing this parallel, what is wrong with it or what is right (if such a thing is possible...), would also have moved us forward (which does not mean go ahead and address it now and then ignore the above...):

"It is like saying a pinto is higher quality than cadillac on cinder blocks in a garage, ignoring the possibilities allowed by getting tires, filling the tank, opening the garage, and taking it for a ride. Does this example exhibit my view of the inconsisency of what you're saying, or should I try a different one?"

My question is why did you make me retype that and ask you again instead of doing me the favor of answering it the first time you replied? It is fine if you disagree, but by replying the way you are replying, you come across (atleast to me) as trying to ignore inconvenient issues I raise. Sort of like a politician would (sorry for the insult, but the behavior is strongly reminiscent of this to me).

The ability to run the games and applications that I want is a quality I feel important in an operating system. If it can't run the things I want it to run, then there is no point in using that OS.

"These determinitions of quality are based on market and API control. Do you recall my comments about API specifications, and the anti-trust ruling requring API technical info to be released by Microsoft?"

You are practicing language engineering here. You are using "a quality", a usage of the word quality that is not synonymous with the meaning I was offering (English is crazy like that) to bolster your claim that what you are discussing is "the quality" of the OS. In this specific case, your usage of quality here is synonymous with "property" or "attribute", my usage is synonymous with "grade of excellence". The usages are not interchangeable.

Also, did you respond to that comment before reading the sentences that came after it? Because I'm sure you would've caught what I meant by saying that had you read them first.

Umm...this is an example of what I mean. I responded directly to the sentences that came after it that you refer to. You did not quote that response, and then make this comment implying that I ignored your real meaning. In actual fact, I did address your "real meaning" and had to re-quote it because you ignored said response. This makes me think you are just being dishonest...do you see why?

When did I say "never"?

*sigh*

This is the misdirection I mean. You claimed I said Microsoft never wins on quality. I state I did not say this. You "*sigh*". Lost in the shuffle is the full text I referred to above, i.e., the response you implied above that I never provided:

Oh, I'm not proposing that Microsoft never wins on quality, but that their OS development specifically, and applications in some cases, either did not, or did because they hindered quality (such as stability and speed early on in Windows) of competing applications. This of course leaves room for argument that any specific application competed and won on quality, but my primary argument has been about the OS specifically.

When did I say "never"?

and you go on to quote only the last line and say *sigh*. Is this your idea of productive? Do you understand why I feel like I'm talking to a politician?

Well, see above. Do you maintain that DOS was a higher quality OS than Windows when Windows was first released?

No, I wouldn't say that DOS was a higher quality OS at the time of Windows release because Windows had backwards compatibility with DOS.

Since you seem dedicated to ignoring this parallel, how about Windows NT versus Windows 3.11, or even DOS, as I proposed above? (BTW, do not reply to this text while not quoting, in context, the pertinent text above concerning Windows NT please... ) How about any new OS compared to an older OS it could not emulate, nevermind any differences in functionality of said OSes? You are applying the term "quality" arbitrarily, as I've illustrated above.

You could still run those DOS programs while at the same time having the benefits Windows offered. In other words, Windows offered everything DOS did and more. I don't think you can say the same for BeOS, it may outdo Windows on the technical qualities, but what about the others? Anyway, I think we've spent enough time in this thread haven't we? Hopefully this will be my last post in the thread.

Hmm...you dropped a lot of my text to focus on attacking this example. I really don't like that, as in the process you ignored the rather large amounts of text I re-quoted here.

 

[dksuiko]

I guess my hope in my previous message being my last wasn't fulfilled.

Are you conceding to my example? If you are, why didn't you say so and save me the trouble of retyping it and asking you? If you are not, why didn't you quote it and address why not? None of your other text in this post does.

I didn't respond to it because I didn't care enough about it. You really need to relax and calm down - I've seen your other responses to the other posters, always insinuating that they are using some 'tactics' against you or something. Did you ever consider the possibility that they just didn't care enough about it? But anyway, since you really want to me reply to it, I guess I will.. For christmas.

You are asking me to prove that BeOS wasn't terminally ill when no one even made the prognosis, and in the process saying the smoking gun doesn't matter.

CAUTION: I didn't quote your entire example. But since you're nitpicking on the semantics of the post, I'll need to say this: I'm responding to the conclusion of your example! Anyway.. I'm asking you to prove BeOS wasn't terminally ill because through your posts about how Microsoft's monopoly 'shot them in the hospital bed', it sounded to me like you were saying they were not terminally ill and would have lived (the parallel being that BeOS would be the better OS and winning marketshare because of that). So, you're right, I am asking you to prove that. But not before you asserted the claim that they would lived (saying that BeOS was, in fact, a better OS and in turn, saying that the better OS wins).

Why do you ignore this text, and then spend a paragraph responding to the text you did? Is it not relevant to statement you made? Would not discussing this (including your quoted text) move us forward? Why did you instead move us sideways?

On why I responded to your other comments, its because those dealt with another issue. The text you restated dealt with BeOS' being limited in the market, while the others dealt with which OS is better. And on the issue of BeOS' being limited in the market - I didn't respond to it because there was nothing more for me to say. I asked you a question which was meant for you to just consider the possibility that they didn't do everything they could. Then you made your point on why you felt BeOS' options were limited/blocked in that market, and I feel those reasons are understable ones. Even though I don't completely agree with you, I don't mind leaving you with your sentiments and leaving me with mine on this particular issue (in other words, I don't care enough about it).

Well, you have a concern with my example, and you word it as if Windows would have been a lower quality OS than DOS if it didn't have compatibility.

That's right, I did word it as if Windows would have been a lower quality OS than DOS if it didn't have compatibility. But that's assuming Windows didn't have its own set of games/apps coming out on its own. Do you think I did that on accident or something? I don't see why you keep asking me about Windows/Dos and then now Windows 3.11/WindowsNT. Did I not make it clear enough that I feel the overall package of an operating system includes its selection of application and games as well?

Of course, if you maintain that because of the "incompatibility and less compatible content", it would have been lower quality, you have reached the source of our disagreement, and why I say you are using "quality" in a confusing and arbitrary way. Would substituting "excellence" clear it up for you?

Then it looks like we've reached the source of our disagreement, because I would say that Windows 3.11 is a better OS than Windows NT3 when it comes to the games and applications it can run. I don't see how I'm using the word 'quality' in a confusing way. If you feel the need to trip over the word 'quality', change it to whatever you want. The bottom line of what I'm saying is, the applications and games that an OS can run contribute to the overall package, along with its technical merits. When judging the 'whole' package of an OS, you can't just judge its technical side or just the apps/games it runs - but I would say that the apps/games an OS can run do outweigh the importance of its technical background (and no, I'm not saying that a shitty OS that crashes every second would be better than a stable OS with no apps/games to run. I'd say those two are equal).

With regards to BeOS, it had a strong technical background but it really had no games. And Windows has a strong foundation of apps/games people want, and its stable enough for people to use those games/apps. Take gaming consoles for a example. You have to consider the games it has when deciding which one you want to buy. Unless, of course, you decide to buy the console that has better hardware and only better hardware. I see it as you arguing that a console with excellent hardware but no games would be a better buy for a gamer, and I'm arguing that a console with not-as-good hardware but better games would be the better buy.

And here is a parallel I used by way of illustration...addressing this parallel, what is wrong with it or what is right (if such a thing is possible...), would also have moved us forward (which does not mean go ahead and address it now and then ignore the above...)

I didn't respond to that because I didn't really understand the analogy. Regardless of whether I understood it or not, I felt addressing the Windows 3.11 and DOS issue would be the same thing. It is, after all, a parallel correct? But since you feel it is so important to respond to that example, I'll take you up on your offer and have you use a different example.

Since you seem dedicated to ignoring this parallel, how about Windows NT versus Windows 3.11, or even DOS, as I proposed above?

What parallel am I ignoring? You keep proposing different situations as if I'm going to inconsistently apply my position in saying that the games and applications an operating system has is, in addition to its technical merits, part of the overall quality of that OS? What part of that do you not understand? Your example of Windows NT and Windows 3.11 even furthers my point. Which one was more popular with the consumers? I hardly knew anybody that even used Windows NT, and most wouldn't beacuse it ran none of theirs games. Then came Windows NT4 and Windows 98. And still, a lot of people used Windows 98 over Windows NT4 - but around this time I remember hearing comments like, "If NT4 could ran more games, I'd run NT4." There were even articles on the web at the time, saying that NT4, with its new interface, is a great OS and very stable. It ran some games, but it couldn't run most of them. There were even some people who ran Windows NT for the few games it could run, but those who did were the minority.

Then came Windows 2000 and Windows ME. Windows 2000 had the stability of Windows NT and it could run most of the games and applications. It couldn't run DOS games, but at this point in time, those games were so old it didn't matter much. I know a whole lot of people who use Win2K as their primary gaming OS. And still do. So, where have I been inconsistent here? In all of these examples, the technical merits of the operating systems were considered - but the games/applications it could run was paramount. I see BeOS vs. Windows 2k/98/XP as I saw Windows NT4/Windows98. Nice technical stability, but who cares about that if I can't run the games I want to play? Where have I been inconsistent? You make it sound as if its hard to believe that one would choose an OS that runs more games and applications over one that has a more advanced technical background.

How about any new OS compared to an older OS it could not emulate, nevermind any differences in functionality of said OSes? You are applying the term "quality" arbitrarily, as I've illustrated above.

Any new OS compared to another older OS that it could not emulate? You mean like Windows NT3 and Windows 3.11? You tell me, what did the consumer market choose?

Hmm...you dropped a lot of my text to focus on attacking this example. I really don't like that, as in the process you ignored the rather large amounts of text I re-quoted here.

And your text focusing on the attack of that example assumed that I was inconsistent in holding the view of application/gaming compatibility over technical merits.

-dksuiko

 

[demalion]

I guess my hope in my previous message being my last wasn't fulfilled.

Are you conceding to my example? If you are, why didn't you say so and save me the trouble of retyping it and asking you? If you are not, why didn't you quote it and address why not? None of your other text in this post does.

I didn't respond to it because I didn't care enough about it.

Well that's not a very good reason, dksuiko. I could arbitrarily "not care" about any point you make in turn, does that excuse ignoring it? This seems a pretty obvious observation to me...

You really need to relax and calm down - I've seen your other responses to the other posters, always insinuating that they are using some 'tactics' against you or something.

Insinuate? Sort of like saying someone "always" does something? In actuality, I specifically state what I think they are doing and then give the reasons why with examples, which is pretty clearly not an "insinuation" but a case that can be responded to and disproven.

Did you ever consider the possibility that they just didn't care enough about it? But anyway, since you really want to me reply to it, I guess I will.. For christmas.

"Didn't care enough about it"? Are we in kindergarten, or trying to have a discussion? What kind of response is that? Maybe its just me...don't you think that type of response is a bit childish?

You are asking me to prove that BeOS wasn't terminally ill when no one even made the prognosis, and in the process saying the smoking gun doesn't matter.

CAUTION: I didn't quote your entire example. But since you're nitpicking on the semantics of the post, I'll need to say this: I'm responding to the conclusion of your example!

Well, looking back, I did not "nitpick" but specifically stated why you ignoring the example the first time prevented us from moving forward. Is "semantics" the new buzzword to dismiss criticism of your argument structure?

Anyway.. I'm asking you to prove BeOS wasn't terminally ill because through your posts about how Microsoft's monopoly 'shot them in the hospital bed', it sounded to me like you were saying they were not terminally ill and would have lived (the parallel being that BeOS would be the better OS and winning marketshare because of that). So, you're right, I am asking you to prove that. But not before you asserted the claim that they would lived (saying that BeOS was, in fact, a better OS and in turn, saying that the better OS wins).

You see, an opportunity to move forward. You've illustrated nicely what I consider is wrong with your question. I am stating that the person was shot, and you are arguing about their health at the time. We can have a discussion about their health at the time, but asking me to prove their health (as a company) sidesteps everything to do with the bullet that was fired.

Perhaps it would be clearer if we assumed Be Inc was terminally ill for the moment: my whole point is that the problem is that we have no idea if they would have survived without being "shot".

Why do you ignore this text, and then spend a paragraph responding to the text you did? Is it not relevant to statement you made? Would not discussing this (including your quoted text) move us forward? Why did you instead move us sideways?

On why I responded to your other comments, its because those dealt with another issue. The text you restated dealt with BeOS' being limited in the market, while the others dealt with which OS is better. And on the issue of BeOS' being limited in the market - I didn't respond to it because there was nothing more for me to say. I asked you a question which was meant for you to just consider the possibility that they didn't do everything they could.

But I never ruled out this possibility. Which is explicitly stated in the text you ignored. I answered your question, yet you continued as if I hadn't. That is why not responding to the text wasted my time. Now, you responded it to it. As a result, I'm not complaining about you wasting my time with this text, but expressing I'm relieved we are moving forward. Do you understand why the nature of my response changed?

Then you made your point on why you felt BeOS' options were limited/blocked in that market, and I feel those reasons are understable ones.

My goodness, why didn't you say so before?

Even though I don't completely agree with you, I don't mind leaving you with your sentiments and leaving me with mine on this particular issue (in other words, I don't care enough about it).

I'm not seeking to convert you to my belief, but supporting my proposition that the implication that the monopoly adverseley affects the progress of OS development. As far as I'm concerned, this does not mean that BeOS would definitely have succeeded, or that Microsoft never puts out quality products that "win" on that basis, but it does mean that dismissing and discounting the effect of the monopoly requires a consistent dedication to ignoring reality. The proposition that BeOS did not offer higher quality (with a specific definition of "quality" being discussed) to the consumer than its competition at the time and that Microsoft's monopoly has had no adverse effect on the advancement of "mainstream" OSes was what I was arguing against when you responded.

Well, you have a concern with my example, and you word it as if Windows would have been a lower quality OS than DOS if it didn't have compatibility.

That's right, I did word it as if Windows would have been a lower quality OS than DOS if it didn't have compatibility. But that's assuming Windows didn't have its own set of games/apps coming out on its own.

And I stated you are arbitrarily replacing "value" with "quality", and preventing clear connection to the concept. Say "value at the time", and we don't have a disagreement. When I speak of quality, I am speaking about the potential allowed with the OS as the foundation on which to deliver content compared to another. Which is why my cadillac/pinto analogy seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

Windows was higher quality (ignoring speed and RAM usage and their impact) than DOS, regardless of application availability.

Do you think I did that on accident or something? I don't see why you keep asking me about Windows/Dos and then now Windows 3.11/WindowsNT. Did I not make it clear enough that I feel the overall package of an operating system includes its selection of application and games as well?

Did I not make it clear that I disagree with your labelling, and list exactly why? Sort of a silly question to ask, isn't it?

Of course, if you maintain that because of the "incompatibility and less compatible content", it would have been lower quality, you have reached the source of our disagreement, and why I say you are using "quality" in a confusing and arbitrary way. Would substituting "excellence" clear it up for you?

Then it looks like we've reached the source of our disagreement, because I would say that Windows 3.11 is a better OS than Windows NT3 when it comes to the games and applications it can run.

Well, we've moved forward nicely, then. I had begun to form the opinion that such was not possible.

I don't see how I'm using the word 'quality' in a confusing way. If you feel the need to trip over the word 'quality', change it to whatever you want.

Actually, I consider that you are "tripping" over the word "quality". The difference between the support for our viewpoints about the word quality at this point is merely that I have given my reasons why I think your use of the word "quality" is ill-considered (a few posts ago) and you are just now stating that you think your usage is correct (and the reasons are not yet stated). My complaint is not so much that we disagree over this, but that I had to repeat myself to clarify this issue. Can you see why I have a complaint about that?

The bottom line of what I'm saying is, the applications and games that an OS can run contribute to the overall package, along with its technical merits.

A valid viewpoint. The thing is, I never maintained that BeOS had a higher "value" (the term I think fits your concept better) than Windows, only that it had a higher "quality" and the potential to deliver better "value", and that it was denied the opportunity to do so. If I understand where we stand now properly, we are not disagreeing.

When judging the 'whole' package of an OS, you can't just judge its technical side or just the apps/games it runs - but I would say that the apps/games an OS can run do outweigh the importance of its technical background (and no, I'm not saying that a shitty OS that crashes every second would be better than a stable OS with no apps/games to run. I'd say those two are equal).

The difference is that I maintain that the "apps/games it runs" is a function of market and API control, and is not synonymous with "quality"....nor need it be with plenty of other words available to work in its place (quality) when discussing "apps/games it runs".
Going forward, I wonder if Wine will progress any more quickly (as a result of the changes to Microsoft's monopoly resulting from the antitrust settlement) so that the impact of this control can be countered. My main concern about this being prevented is centered on the convergence of Palladium and initiatives such as the DMCA and their impact on the future of computers.

I'm dropping text from now on that does not contain assertions I think I disagree with, as I think after this post we'll have reached an understanding of each other's points.

...I see it as you arguing that a console with excellent hardware but no games would be a better buy for a gamer, and I'm arguing that a console with not-as-good hardware but better games would be the better buy.

Well, actually, I'm arguing that the "console with not-as-good hardware but better games" has arranged things to prevent the games from appearing on the "console with excellent hardware but no games", and that for this reason it is getting away with "not-as-good hardware". Further, I state that if this had not been arranged, the people who made the "console with not-as-good hardware" would have offered their next, improved, console on a time table (EDIT: and at a price) to compete with the advantages of the "console with excellent hardware", instead of at their leisure to maximize profitability. In other words, things would have benefited the consumer more.

I'll hope you note that my initial reply on this topic was due to what I viewed as the proposition that a monopoly was the desirable end result of capitalism and competition, and that it offered the benefits of such.

I didn't respond to that because I didn't really understand the analogy.

Hmm...ok, I don't think you thought about it much then. I have to ask if you really mean you did not "agree" with my analogy instead of not "understanding" it. Or perhaps it is merely that you did not understand the difference in our use of the word "quality". In either case, my complaint is simply that it would have served us better for you to ask...

Regardless of whether I understood it or not, I felt addressing the Windows 3.11 and DOS issue would be the same thing. It is, after all, a parallel correct?

Well, you thought not. Witness the flaw you found with it. Hence, in response I offered another parallel without the flaw (because you were right, it was a flaw). We could have had a discussion with the flawed parallel and moved forward, but it was your decision not to (not that I blame you).

But since you feel it is so important to respond to that example, I'll take you up on your offer and have you use a different example.

Your console parallel serves nicely. Notice, I did not agree with your parallel concerning our positions, but by addressing it anyways I (hope) we have progressed our discussion.

...

I've addressed why I "kept proposing different situations" above, and that I had already explained this prior to that last post, so I'm skipping large portions of your text as I'd be repeating myself. Some key points of your text stand out to me, though:

Then came Windows NT4 and Windows 98. And still, a lot of people used Windows 98 over Windows NT4 - but around this time I remember hearing comments like, "If NT4 could ran more games, I'd run NT4."

What would you call the reason for this? I'd call it higher quality (again, except perhaps for RAM requirements and speed at the time for NT). This line of questioning in my text was simply to resolve our apparent disagreement on the word, and it seems to have worked.

There were even articles on the web at the time, saying that NT4, with its new interface, is a great OS and very stable. It ran some games, but it couldn't run most of them. There were even some people who ran Windows NT for the few games it could run, but those who did were the minority.

Knowing all this, what word would you have had me use instead of quality?

You make it sound as if its hard to believe that one would choose an OS that runs more games and applications over one that has a more advanced technical background.

No, actually I specifically maintain that that is not the case. I said the reason Windows was chosen was because it ran more games and applications, as a result of said monopoly, and not because of higher quality. This precludes me meaning what you said, or atleast I think so...did I mispeak somewhere?

Hmm...you dropped a lot of my text to focus on attacking this example. I really don't like that, as in the process you ignored the rather large amounts of text I re-quoted here.

And your text focusing on the attack of that example assumed that I was inconsistent in holding the view of application/gaming compatibility over technical merits.

"assumed"? How many more question marks and uses of the phrase "My question to you" did you want me to provide!?

In any case, my "attack" was because it seemed clear to me that the word quality as you'd use it did not make sense in the context I offered. Having specifically explained why it did not make sense already, the problem was simply that you did not address those explanations. Now that you have, we, I think, have moved forward. Do you agree?

 

[DemoCoder]

Before the so-called "Microsoft tax" was ended, a bunch of powerhouse Linux companies were able to arise, such as Redhat and VA-Linux, who could not sell hardware/software thru normal channels, but none-the-less became highly successful.

Companies such as Mandrake-Linux, Redhat, SuSE, TurboLinux, et al were able to make inroads against Microsoft by doing several things:

1) Shipping versions of their OS configured to look like Windows out of the box, to help consumers adjust

2) Shipping versions of their OS with clones of the favorite applications (StarOffice, KDE Office, etc)

3) Shipping with good web browser (KDE Konqueror)

4) Aggressively going after schools and public sector desktops and third world countries where price is a deciding factor and the cost of Windows was too high. (e.g. China, South America)

That is, they looked at their potential customers and put some thought into how they could migrate them to a new OS without too much pain and what the "major pain" was with the old OS. (Price)

Microsoft had to do the same thing with Windows. They just couldn't break DOS compatibility instantly like OS/2 did. Each version of MS Windows had to run the millions of applications that ran on the previous version. THAT is a factor in their success. For the same reason, Apple had to ensure that each new upgrade of the MacOS (68k->PPC, MacOS9 -> Unix based OS X) continued to run all of the old software.

No one wants all of the software on their shelf to instantly become valueless as soon as they install a new OS. And no one wants all of the knowledge they learned on the old OS to be useless on a completely foreign user interface. Even Microsoft had to include "switches" in the Windows 95 and Windows XP to allow users to switch back to the old crusty user interface.

It is this dedication to customer needs OVER and ABOVE WHAT SEEMS TECHNICALLY ELEGANT (ditching all the legacy code, starting from scratch) that made Microsoft, Apple, and Linux vendors successful for consumers.

It is the total ignorance of the end customer by BeOS that it is ultimate failure.

BeOS was like a induction-charged electric car that used a joystick instead of a steering wheel and was wider than the normal street lanes. It might have been technically high quality, but it was alien to use, couldn't be refueled anywhere, and didn't interoperate with normal streets.

A Formula-1 car might be better than a Honda Civic, but the fact that you can't drive it on the same streets makes it useless. And in some cases, the F-1 does things "too well" in categories that consumers simply don't care about. I don't need 600HP and I might care more about how many child seats it can fit, for example.

Windows users don't neccessarily care about 5ms audio latency or fast-message passing.


P.s.

Dtsuiko, you're wasting your time. Demalion will never understand why BeOS really failed because he is in love with BeOS. We went thru the same crap when 3dfx failed and NVidia dirty tricks/marketing was to blame, when the real culprit was bad 3dfx management. He also constantly accuses everyone of twisting his words. I don't know if English is his first language, but maybe if he wrote clearer and more logically people wouldn't misunderstand him.

 

[dksuiko]

"Didn't care enough about it"? Are we in kindergarten, or trying to have a discussion? What kind of response is that? Maybe its just me...don't you think that type of response is a bit childish?

No, it's not. I didn't care 'enough' about it in the sense that it was only an example of the main issue. Why argue an unclear example when the main issue doesn't need any clarification? Actually, there's no need to answer that. It's irrelevant now.

Actually, I consider that you are "tripping" over the word "quality". The difference between the support for our viewpoints about the word quality at this point is merely that I have given my reasons why I think your use of the word "quality" is ill-considered (a few posts ago) and you are just now stating that you think your usage is correct (and the reasons are not yet stated). My complaint is not so much that we disagree over this, but that I had to repeat myself to clarify this issue. Can you see why I have a complaint about that?

Earlier, you said, "my usage is synonymous with "grade of excellence," as if mine isn't. I said that qualities (as in, characteristics/attributes/traits/etc), like the selection of apps/games determine (again, along with technical merits, yet at the same time, outweighing that) the overall quality (as in, grade of excellence) of the operating system - whether or not that selection is determined by market/api control in first place, doesn't matter. It's contribution to the overall package of the operating system can not be ignored. The fact that I have to state my reasons for the usage of the word, instead of just trusting you to use your common sense to understand it, leads me to believe that you just want to argue over semantics. We're not in a courtroom and don't need to give a definition of every one of our words when using them.

Kinda reminds me of last weeks episode of Boomtown when the main character's wife asks him if he has ever cheated on her. He says no, but later on, when very drunk, tells her that is cheating on her. So then she asks, "Why did you lie to me?" He responds, "I didn't honey. You asked me if I cheated, which I didn't. I am cheating." *slap* His wife walks out and he cries to himself, "Present-tense, past-tense... forgive me, I am a lawyer." Anyway, unless you want me to further define my usage of 'quality' than I already have - a topic that I don't find particularly appealing, then I think I'm done with this thread.

-dksuiko

 

[demalion]

"Didn't care enough about it"? Are we in kindergarten, or trying to have a discussion? What kind of response is that? Maybe its just me...don't you think that type of response is a bit childish?

No, it's not. I didn't care 'enough' about it in the sense that it was only an example of the main issue. Why argue an unclear example when the main issue doesn't need any clarification?

The main issue didn't need any clarification? Your post before that one was a series of omissions that did not do anything to progress the argument on the main issue. The example was one tool to progress the discussion, and having discarded the tool you then complained about the discussion not moving forward. Pointless.

Actually, there's no need to answer that. It's irrelevant now.

Fine, but, please, in the future, don't discard tools of discussion when you offer nothing more useful in its place.

Actually, I consider that you are "tripping" over the word "quality". The difference between the support for our viewpoints about the word quality at this point is merely that I have given my reasons why I think your use of the word "quality" is ill-considered (a few posts ago) and you are just now stating that you think your usage is correct (and the reasons are not yet stated). My complaint is not so much that we disagree over this, but that I had to repeat myself to clarify this issue. Can you see why I have a complaint about that?

Earlier, you said, "my usage is synonymous with "grade of excellence," as if mine isn't.

Not the one I was addressing.

I said that qualities (as in, characteristics/attributes/traits/etc),

Which you've just illustrated you understood just fine.

like the selection of apps/games determine (again, along with technical merits, yet at the same time, outweighing that)

Well, the "outweighing that" is your opinion that you are tyring to say is part of the definition to support your point. It is not part of the definition of quality to determine the relevance of any aspect, or rather I should say the weight of each aspect has to be determined prior to comparison.

the overall quality (as in, grade of excellence) of the operating system - whether or not that selection is determined by market/api control in first place, doesn't matter.

Your argument is based on a usage of quality that is synonymous with value. That does not mean quality cannot be synoymous with value (as, in fact, it can), but that in our discussion it is clearly established by what was being compared, and what was not being compared, that it is not (a statement substantiated both in the text you did not quote, and the large body of prior discussion on my part before discussing with you). If you can't see where the discussion established that prior to your assumption of a definition of quality, say so, so I know cutting and pasting it for you is required.

Another wording that might be more pleasing to you:

Quality can apply to technical excellence, to the amount of content that can be delivered, or both (amongst a host of other phrases), equally validly.

The problem is you arbitrarily picked one usage when another was already being discussed. Or are you going to argue now that "technical excellence" is not a valid usage of the word quality? My only problem with that dispute would be this occurs after our discussion and not before, and that you avoided ample opportunities to do so along the way.

When I pointed out that the discussion specified specifically that the discussion of quality excluded games and applications offered, and gave support to that assertion, and then you respond, ignoring this support, you are simply causing me, again, to repeat myself.

It's contribution to the overall package of the operating system can not be ignored.

You could have spent more time considering the post you are replying to, which would clearly illustrate I wasn't ignoring "its contribution to the overall package of the operating system", but discussing something else entirely, specifically the quality of the OS excluding that factor.

But I no longer have to ask if you understand why I complain about your posts necessitating my repetition purely because you ignore something I mention, as you've clearly illustrated the answer is 'yes", but you simply don't care.

The fact that I have to state my reasons for the usage of the word, instead of just trusting you to use your common sense to understand it, leads me to believe that you just want to argue over semantics.

"Common sense" = "Your viewpoint", eh? Why didn't you say so earlier? It could have saved us some time.
When a word has more than one valid meaning in the context of a sentence, it is not "common sense" to decide which meaning is in use based on your own preference, it is simply catering to your own preference to do so arbitrarily. Nor is it a matter of "common sense" to ignore text that has already established that a particular usage is applicable.
When I maintain my usage is what we are discussing, I'm arguing semantics, when you have been consistently maintaing that yours is...what the hell are you doing? That is one of the problems with your stance on this, your criticism is hypocritical. We are arguing semantics, but that's because it is important to our discussion. Imagine that, a discussion of "the meaning or the interpretation of a word" having bearing on a discussion...using words...

We're not in a courtroom and don't need to give a definition of every one of our words when using them.

Who said anything about "have to"? It is better to waste time refusing to discuss matters that might clarify that either "side" is using a different definition, obviously.

Kinda reminds me of last weeks episode of Boomtown when the main character's wife asks him if he has ever cheated on her. He says no, but later on, when very drunk, tells her that is cheating on her. So then she asks, "Why did you lie to me?" He responds, "I didn't honey. You asked me if I cheated, which I didn't. I am cheating." *slap*
His wife walks out and he cries to himself, "Present-tense, past-tense... forgive me, I am a lawyer."

Strangely, your parallel shows a semantic discussion (exactly what you criticized me for doing) clarifying a misconception, yet your implication by this example (though no support is given anywhere for it) is that what I was trying to do was use semantics to hide what I was talking about...when I have pages of text in which it is established exactly the criteria for "quality" I was discussing.
Not that our "semantic discussion" was about tense, or had anything to do with anything like cheating on a spouse, but who cares about relevance.

Hey, am I allowed to point out that your comparison is deceptive, or is this something else you've determined I am not allowed to criticize?

Anyway, unless you want me to further define my usage of 'quality' than I already have - a topic that I don't find particularly appealing, then I think I'm done with this thread.

Well, since you did not address my text where I stated my stance on the main discussion, I presume you do not disagree with it.

Therefore, I guess there is nothing more for us to discuss about that. EDIT: Hmm...as this aspect of the dispute has nothing to do with the thread anymore, I guess I won't be replying in this thread after this, but via PMs unless otherwise requested. I do think it is important to debunk the "don't quibble over semantics" tactic of argument dismissal, but I don't see what further I can say to usefully address that.