homintern is on your IGNORE list.

jimnbkk wrote:

The invention of the computer was of course important.  But, Bill Gates' 'invention' (if that's the right word) of DOS (disc operating system) led the way to our ability, through the various Windows programs,  to use the computer the way we do today.  

Now, before you-all beat me up too bad, I'm not an expert for sure.  But, the discussions above all seem to be about a mechanical thing which doesn't work worth beans without software.  So, I thought I'd point this out.

Microsoft bought the DOS system from Tim Paterson, then a programmer at a Seattle Computer Products. Gates 'genius' (if that is the right word) lay in giving the Windows system to computer manufacturers for free, so that one cannot buy a computer without having this pre-installed whether one likes it or not.

jimnbkk wrote:

The invention of the computer was of course important.  But, Bill Gates' 'invention' (if that's the right word) of DOS (disc operating system) led the way to our ability, through the various Windows programs,  to use the computer the way we do today.  

Now, before you-all beat me up too bad, I'm not an expert for sure.  But, the discussions above all seem to be about a mechanical thing which doesn't work worth beans without software.  So, I thought I'd point this out.

You certainly are not an expert Jim. It's widely published that the original developer of an OS for PC's refused IBM's overtures, Gates stepped in and developed an OS with marked similarities to Gary_Kildall's C/PM for IBM he called PC-DOS keeping MS-DOS for his later developments. Gates is a brilliant businessman rather than a brilliant computer scientist.  Those were the heady days of the microboard pc when hobbyists were patching up kit mostly in California.

Further the way we use computers today, through windows, icons, menus and pointers (the WIMP interface) owes most of utility to the Object-oriented developments at Parc Xerox.

Also the discussion of Turing is not about hardware it is really about mathematics, software, AI and vision. Turing was essentially a mathematician with vision and behaved and thought like a mathematician, which is precisely why he misjudged the danger of taking his case to the police.

Lunchtime O'Booze wrote:

Well I don't know who contributed what to the computer but thank them all the same..

however there is one very important Barak Obama policy that should have every Yank voting for him for it , just alone.

And that is his Green energy program..turning alternative energy into a vast program that could see the USA as the leaders in an industry that is going to dominate.

Solar energy is now like the computer was 20-30 years ago. It's leaping ahead so quickly that in 10 years it will dominate. Germany is streaming ahead but the USA has the manpower, the scientists and the capacity to make the US the leading producers and provide millions of jobs at the same time.

If it passes up on this and allows China to do what it does best-nick everyone elses idea and quickly put into practise..and Silly Palin's "drill baby drill" is the go, then we really are going to see the US decline even quicker.

So get out there Henry Cate and vote for Obama..come on, even you must know the idea of a doddering McCain who doesn't know which way is up and a nutcase like that Palin dame would be a disaster.

Well, you don't seem to realize that "developing alternate forms of energy" is a great idea, but will take at the very least a decade to start bearing fruit.

Solar energy is a great idea, and so is wind energy (although Ted Kennedy voted against it in his own backyard).  In the meantime, are we Americans supposed to continue handing a trillion dollars a year to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran?

What's wrong with drilling for our own oil?  And why does your hero oppose it?  In fact, what's wrong with nuclear energy?  Does Senator Obama support that?  I would guess not.  Drilling for oil in Alaska?  Oh, Nancy Pelosi cast a hex on that, as well as trying to stop any development of the shale-oil deposits.

So, while we are waiting for all those wonderful new forms of "alternate energy," we will continue to get screwed by OPEC?  Ten years would be ten trillion dollars, and that's a nice piece of change, even for the government.

I have already stated my position.  America should do ALL OF THE ABOVE, starting yesterday.  However, there seems to be an alarming Democratic Green faction -- which is, moreover, lying.  They SAID they had lifted the ban on offshore drilling, but they DID NOT MENTION Nancy Pelosi's alarmingly hypocritical bill which changed all those temporary bans into permanent bans, unless you were something like 75 miles off the coast.

Frankly, I will not vote for Senator Obama because every time he opens his mouth to speak, he lies.  Bill Ayers was "just someone in my neighborhood."  Yeah, right.  And Jeremiah Wright ("GOD DAMN AMERICA") was Senator Obama's pastor for TWENTY YEARS.  And Obama lied and lied about Wright, until the Rev made a big mistake and opened his yap in Washington DC earlier this year.  Then Obama disavowed him.

Let's face it: you support Obama because you and he are both ardent socialists.  You tried to name one "program" of his which you thought made sense, and you FAILED.  Unless you have a check for $10 trillion.  If so, mail it right in.

Henry Cate wrote:

.....  In the meantime, are we Americans supposed to continue handing a trillion dollars a year to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran?

What's wrong with drilling for our own oil?  ......

Well, you could cut back on your oil consumption to meet your own resources, then you wouldn't have to import so much, would you?

On the other hand, you could remember why oil is priced in US dollars, something which has benefited the US enormously over the past 30 odd years. During the Nixon Administration, the US negotiated assurances from Saudi Arabia to price oil in dollars only, and invest their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. Treasury Bills. The U.S., in return, would protect the ibn Saud dynasty (which is probably why the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, WMD, etc., rather than Saudi Arabia, given that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. not Afghans or Iraqis). These agreements created "petrodollar recycling,"  where, in effect, global oil consumption via OPEC provided a subsidy to the U.S. economy. This is one of the reasons Europeans created the euro to compete with the dollar as an alternative international reserve currency.

And what makes you think more drilling in US territories would alleviate the US problem? The newly-found oil would belong to the oil companies, not to the US Government, and they would sell it on the world market at world prices - unless the US Government nationalized Exxon, etc.



Last edited by cottmann on Thu 9 Oct, 2008 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

oh Henry you are a hopeless case.

Do you really want all the links to the shonks John McCain has hung out with..including the Vietnamese killers and torturers of American prisoners who he warmly greeted on his various visits to Vietnam ?

Anyway his association with the mass killer George Bish should be enough !

but go ahead..destroy the wilderness for oil but don't forget..that oil in Alaska is owned by Canada courtesy of the fragrant Sarah Palin so don't think the money will be rolling into the US..it's going to pay for Smiles free healthcare !!

[quote="555]You certainly are not an expert Jim. It's widely published that the original developer of an OS for PC's refused IBM's overtures, Gates stepped in and developed an OS with marked similarities to Gary_Kildall's C/PM for IBM he called PC-DOS keeping MS-DOS for his later developments. Gates is a brilliant businessman rather than a brilliant computer scientist.  Those were the heady days of the microboard pc when hobbyists were patching up kit mostly in California.

Further the way we use computers today, through windows, icons, menus and pointers (the WIMP interface) owes most of utility to the Object-oriented developments at Parc Xerox.

Also the discussion of Turing is not about hardware it is really about mathematics, software, AI and vision. Turing was essentially a mathematician with vision and behaved and thought like a mathematician, which is precisely why he misjudged the danger of taking his case to the police.[/quote]

Allow someone from Seattle, where most of this greatness took place, to provide the best version of events about how "DOS" came about.  Please read this short url:  http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
Two things to add:
1.  Gates did develop an operating system of his own for Altar.
2.  Gates never gave DOS away, he just was smart enough not to give the license to IBM and kept it and sold it to many others to use.  He also kept making it better and better.  Of course when Apple came out is when he really started stealing, but thats another subject.

Thanks Khor Those. It really is a fascinating story. I remember seeing a BBC documentary on it a few years ago. A wikipaedia page on MS-DOS gives the MS perspective. Kildall was clearly bitter at having missed the boat. He seems to have maintained that the legislation on intellectual property was not strong enough at the time for him to have obtained the redress he believed he deserved. OTOH it is quite a leap to believe he would been the "Bill Gates" but for that one deal. There were downstream decisions that sold Gates' products. Kildall was right that the IBM-PC was not going to sweep the market. It wasn't IBM's PC that was the runaway success but it's clones.

Michael Cusumano's book "Microsoft Secrets" relates a lot about Gates business kudos  in later years and is as much a text on how to run an innovation enterprise than a criticism of Gates.

Henry Cate wrote:

Frankly, I will not vote for Senator Obama because every time he opens his mouth to speak, he lies.

And the other one (as opposed, of course, to "that one") doesn't?

See http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

"Frankly, I will not vote for Senator Obama because every time he opens his mouth to speak, he lies."

Henry, it would be a major challenge to find any politician in any country that doesn't lie.

555 wrote:

Thanks Khor Those. It really is a fascinating story. I remember seeing a BBC documentary on it a few years ago. A wikipaedia page on MS-DOS gives the MS perspective. Kildall was clearly bitter at having missed the boat. He seems to have maintained that the legislation on intellectual property was not strong enough at the time for him to have obtained the redress he believed he deserved. OTOH it is quite a leap to believe he would been the "Bill Gates" but for that one deal. There were downstream decisions that sold Gates' products. Kildall was right that the IBM-PC was not going to sweep the market. It wasn't IBM's PC that was the runaway success but it's clones.

Michael Cusumano's book "Microsoft Secrets" relates a lot about Gates business kudos  in later years and is as much a text on how to run an innovation enterprise than a criticism of Gates.

Yes the clones like Tandy (Radio Shack)) combined the DOS system with a set of applications and computers really took off.  Does anyone besides me still have copies of the early DOS (2.0) and Deskmate?  My original IBM PC ran at a blistering 4.7 MHz, and boy was I happy when the 8088 came out and I could upgrade to 8MHz, and just fly through applications.  God I feel old, as it is hard to believe that was only 22 or 23 years ago.

Ok, Ok.  I worked in the Silicon Valley for 23 years.  I was present at the conception, at Ground Zero.  My own personal Ground Zero was a computer store in Los Altos, California, which was full of eager and curious teenage boys.  At the time, I was working for a Dinosaur Firm, Control Data.

I believe it all began with Imsai, or some such, and Bill Gates was down there in New Mexico or Arizona or wherever, already sniffing for the big bucks.  But for a while a company called Cromemco ruled the roost.

And then came Apple.  Apple just devastated the competition, if only because that genius Steve Wozniak realized a cheap way to save hundreds of dollars.  If you bought an Apple, you didn't have to buy a computer monitor.  It drove your own home TV set.  Years later, it was admitted/realized that Wozniak had time-sliced the 6502 chip, spending 50% of the time driving the TV, and the other 50% driving the computer.

It was only when Apple revenues became somewhat alarming, and Apples began showing up on the desks of computer professionals, that IBM launched its PC program.  (So much for whoever said "Apple came later.")  In the meantime, lots of industrious businessmen would show up at Computerland of Los Altos, and demand to buy "that machine that ran Visicalc."  They usually didn't spend more than 15 minutes dropping a couple of thousand dollars on an Apple II.

I remember telling my father, in 1979 or so, that I had spent the afternoon at a computer store.  Said he: "A WHAT?"

Thus began the history of the microcomputer, in my opinion a perfectly thrilling moment -- and a moment of free enterprise in action.  (I include the boys dumpster-diving behind HP headquarters!)  I saved my money and bought an Apple II, and had an enormous amount of fun with it.  It ran circles around the CDC mainframes, in a lot of cases.  And then Serious Programmers began to ask whether they could borrow time on my Apple II.  I readily agreed, and then, one fine day, the most beautiful boy in Palo Alto asked me the same question!

My answer was never in doubt, and we spent the next twelve years together!   :-)

homintern wrote:

Lunchtime O'Booze wrote:

the USA has the manpower ... to make the US the leading producers and provide millions of jobs at the same time.

Preferably on treadmills

Now, that wouldn't be an anti-American crack, would it?

homintern wrote:

Marsilius wrote:

Henry Cate wrote:

Frankly, I will not vote for Senator Obama because every time he opens his mouth to speak, he lies.

And the other one (as opposed, of course, to "that one") doesn't?

It sounds better than the truth, which is of course "Frankly, I will not vote for Senator Obama because he's black"

Sure.  That is called "non-racist Obama fans playing the racist card."  Shame, Homintern, up until now I thought you had a functional brain between your ears.

Reducing all criticism of Obama to "racism" very simply implies that Obama gets a free ride to the White House.  NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE HIM.

Nice politics, huh?

A reasoned discussion of the issues. Ha.  An unbiased examination of the candidates. Ha.

Tell me, Mr. New Zealand Expert -- if Louis Farrakhan were running for President, would you regard all criticism of him as RACIST?

Or are you just too too eager to deal out that racism card from the bottom of the deck?  If so, you make a perfect Obama supporter.  Obama has made charges of racism about 43 times, and NONE of them had any evidence.

Neither does your charge, you great boobie.