Beeblebrox - Oct 27, 2005 01:00pm

I think standards are extremely important.  And with an OS, that’s particularly true.  What a pain it would be if there were twenty or so different OS’s and none of them were compatible.  Think about shopping for software or hardware.  “Will this work with my Beeble OS 3?”

That said, I don’t think it’s a good thing necessarily for one company to own that standard.  For the most part, MS hasn’t abused that monopoly on consumers the way, say, the record industry has, but who knows what kinds of developments we’ve missed because of a lack of competition.

Ideally, we’d have five or six companies making Windows (or whatever), all perfectly compatible with each other, the same way we have several companies making identical DVD-R’s or miniDV cameras.

I liked Beeble OS2 better. It was faster. I don’t know why they messed with it. 

I think it was for the bigger icons, though I do miss Beeble OS 2’s windowshade.

Ah yes, B-DOS.  Those were the days.

Frozonecold - Oct 28, 2005 06:24pm

I was thinking along the lines of qdos, Quick and Dirty Operating system.

Ah, yes, of course.  QDOS.  Those were the days.

lol! oooh, nice one.

I must admit, as much as it is fun to bash Microsoft, I respect them and their monopolistic tendencies. If I was running a company I would do everything in my power to gain complete domination in my market. That’s the American way right?

depends on who u ask. pardon the soapbox, but i get a little pissy when ppl start to associate freedom and liberty to a free market and capitalist society. such things are beneficial to the pursuit of money and the development of new “things” which of course we “have to buy”, but that doesn’t necessarily equate them w/ being beneficial to society. it’s kinda like how companies whose larger stock holders complain that they didn’t make more millions than they did the same quarter of last year, and hence didn’t make a “profit”. must be rough.

i’m no avid star trek fan, but i do think there’s quite a bit extra to life than just more upon more upon more to try and have/own.

it’s just silly to assume that creativity and innovation need to be associated w/ $ amounts. some of history’s greatest artists and scientists were not wealthy, and yet pushed their work to expand their own understanding and/or for the greater good.

triadone - Oct 30, 2005 10:31pm

lol! oooh, nice one.

I must admit, as much as it is fun to bash Microsoft, I respect them and their monopolistic tendencies. If I was running a company I would do everything in my power to gain complete domination in my market. That’s the American way right?

depends on who u ask. pardon the soapbox, but i get a little pissy when ppl start to associate freedom and liberty to a free market and capitalist society. such things are beneficial to the pursuit of money and the development of new “things” which of course we “have to buy”, but that doesn’t necessarily equate them w/ being beneficial to society. it’s kinda like how companies whose larger stock holders complain that they didn’t make more millions than they did the same quarter of last year, and hence didn’t make a “profit”. must be rough.

i’m no avid star trek fan, but i do think there’s quite a bit extra to life than just more upon more upon more to try and have/own.

it’s just silly to assume that creativity and innovation need to be associated w/ $ amounts. some of history’s greatest artists and scientists were not wealthy, and yet pushed their work to expand their own understanding and/or for the greater good.

All true and fair, maybe. All I know is that you’re basically on a consumer website, and you are a fan of a high-priced piece of technology. I don’t really believe that money is everything and I am capable of spending it as I please, but really, you can’t hate it.

Money gets you a lot of things, things that you need to live, things that you need to work, things that you need to be creative. Even being social is tied into money very tightly. Get a job, work hard (that has its own rewards), and buy what you need (inclusive to things you really want). If you can make 100,000$ a year doing something that you like and it doesn’t hurt anybody then it’s great. Also if your satisfied by a job that pays 30,000$ that’s great too.

Money generally gives piece of mind, you don’t have to worry about losing your job or going hungry or paying for an accident if you have a little in the bank. It’s not all about money, but it’s important.

No it’s neither limiting or stifling to creativity. Firstly, that is how our society is based on. The fact that other people do it differently only goes to show that. Secondly you would not be able to change the minds of billions of people to have it work tribally, nor would the tribal system for 50 people work with 50,000,000.

So I’m afraid that the some few hundred years materialism is somewhat making an environment of “love it or leave it”, because you can’t change the world.

Certainly you’ll be able to find people within our society who are less inclined towards money and you’re welcome to work only “enough” for the minimum.

So anyway, you think it’s really fun being a hunter and gatherer? You’re mistaking the Jungle book for reality.

And oh yeah, Pavlov, not sure what you’re getting at. Certainly you draw correlations between objects and concepts when they are involved in positive and negative actions. That how our minds work, try and be as aware as possible about it.