| 5 JUN 2006 at 8:03pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By MichalN (5 JUN 2006 4:18am)
Originally Posted By SirDave (4 JUN 2006 5:22pm)
As usual, your bias is showing so strongly that it undermines credibility. Microsoft's record of innovation over the last three decades may be 'surprisingly poor' in your opinion and in the opinion of people who hitched their star to competing products that failed, but that's not the opinion of most people in the industry.
Name some great innovations coming out of Microsoft. Something like the GUI, networking, web browser, e-mail, word processor, spreadsheet, that sort of thing.
Innovation and success in the marketplace is not the same thing - in fact they rarely meet.
Again, I'm talking about innovation, not about some nebulous and probably ex post "vision". MS-DOS was a knockoff of CP/M initially, later with many UNIX concepts getting bolted on (directories, pipes, etc.). Early versions of Windows were cheesy imitations of the Mac. Windows NT is one of the very few original (although not very innovative) products ever coming out of Microsoft, and that was done by a bunch of guys from DEC (Cutler et al). But NT of course became important long after MS's monopoly position was firmly cemented.
'Innovation and success in the marketplace is not the same thing - in fact they rarely meet.' Huh? You've got to be kidding. I can't believe that anyone with even a factotum of experience in the computer industry would say that.
You're inferring that in order for Bill Gates & Microsoft to be said to have been innovative, they would have to have single-handedly developed a product from the ground up, a product that no one had thought of in any, way shape or form. The fact is that the nuts & bolts of the computer industry are the product of individual small advances and discoveries that were taken to new levels by other people and then combined to form marketable products to the masses. Innovation thus, comes at all levels in this business with the final innovation being both a vision and the production of something the masses will buy. That's exactly what Bill Gates did!
So, you say that MSDOS is a knock-off of CP/M. They have their similiarities but not because it's an attempted knock-off, but because there are only so many ways to give a command to copy, save or load a file etc. I worked extensively with both (and I don't think you have nearly as much as I have) and learning MSDOS after CP/M was not a no-brainer. MSDOS actually does some commands quite differently from CP/M.
As for Windows being a cheesy imitation of MAC: Yeah, right. The Mac GUI came from the Xerox PARC group and its GUI came from the On-Line System which was the first mouse/windows system in the 1960s. Big Whoop!
The main reason why I give Bill Gates credit for innovation is the fact that I and almost everyone else seriously underestimated him and his vision during the formative stages of the present Windows. He started Windows in the 1980s when everyone thought he was an idiot for doing so. With each version of Windows 1-3, practically everyone thought Microsoft would go out of business over Gates preoccupation with Windows. The real first sign of possible life for Windows came with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which I grudgingly used on a laptop it came configured with. But still we were all hanging on the CP/M, MSDOS, TRSDOS, AppleDOS and so were all the program/game developers. And then came Windows 95, almost exactly 10 years after Windows version 1.0. And that's only one example (though the main one), of his taking a product and making it a world standard. No, Bill Gates is a frickin' genius!
How could Bill Gates have accomplished all this when Apple, Tandy & IBM had such a head start? He didn't run any of them into the ground during the period that ended with Windows 95. Overall, the biggest loser of all time in the computer industry is Apple because of a total lack of vision. They make a nice computer that has always done a nice job with graphics, sound & video apps, but practically nobody buys such a proprietary system except the movie industry & schools, without which they would probably only have 3% of the market rather than the 4-5% they have. What a crackup that Apple will likely survive because they make Ipods!
You stick with your view of innovation, the rest of the western world & I will stick with mine.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 6 JUN 2006 at 4:09am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By wowforz (4 JUN 2006 6:59am)
We both are partially correct.
IBM sent the operating system Gates purchased from Patterson through their quality-assurance department and found it to be so riddled with flaws they (IBM) essentially rewrote it and renamed it PC-DOS and thus own half the rights to it.
So not only did Gates not write DOS, the version he supplied to IBM was unusable for the 8086 IMB line, causing IBM to patch the heck out of it and get it up to snuff.
I wonder where you get your history from. Gates never claimed to write DOS. He had a dev team by then that worked on it. Later, Petterson himself became an MS employee.
Microsoft wrote MS-DOS from Patterson's code, then sent it to IBM, who eventually liscenced the code to have their own branded OS to ship with their own computers, but MOST IBM compatible computers shipped with MS-DOS. Even IBMs first computers shipped with MS-DOS. PC-DOS came later, and was strictly a marketing move.
|
| 6 JUN 2006 at 1:05pm |
| Deleted User | The first computer I used was an IBM PS1 in 1990. It had its own graphical interface with a graphical file browser looking like a classic file cabinet, a graphically boosted version of the DOS Shell, Microsoft Works and a tutorial section if I remember correctly. At the time IBMs came shipped with IBM-DOS, licensed off and practically identical to MS-DOS. This computer had the rare and short-lived IBM-DOS 4 on it.
MS-DOS 5, which was launched around that time was a rather big improvement, for me especially because moving from GW-BASIC to QBASIC opened up a whole new world of programming to me. No more line numbers and GOTOs, yay!
|
| 6 JUN 2006 at 4:09pm |
Lady KestrelGuild Master
Posts : 4047
Joined: 27 SEP 2004
Location: US, NJ
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By wowforz (5 JUN 2006 3:31am)
Yes I agree that Microsoft's monoploy has had the benefit of creating the defacto standard and uniformity that has made possible computing for the masses.
And the need for massive amounts of virus protection for the masses.
"Where is the fountain that throws up these flowers in a ceaseless outbreak of ecstasy?"
-Rabindranath Tagore
|
| 6 JUN 2006 at 8:05pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Lady Kestrel (6 JUN 2006 4:08pm)
Originally Posted By wowforz (5 JUN 2006 3:31am)
Yes I agree that Microsoft's monoploy has had the benefit of creating the defacto standard and uniformity that has made possible computing for the masses.
And the need for massive amounts of virus protection for the masses.
Actually, we can thank the phenomenal growth of Internet use by the general public and the huge drop in PC prices over the past fifteen years for that. Before these two major trends, there simply weren't many people in the world with connected personal computers to get infected and there was only a handful of hackers compared to now.
However, if you consider the fact that before Windows provided something akin to a universal standard for all things PC (which led to all that rapid growth), all these assocated problems were effectively non-existent for 99% of all people - including the need for AV programs, spam blockers, etc. So yes, indirectly, Gates was responsible by being instrumental in making the entire platform viable for the masses.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 6 JUN 2006 at 10:33pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Terry Penrod (6 JUN 2006 8:05pm)
Actually, we can thank the phenomenal growth of Internet use by the general public and the huge drop in PC prices over the past fifteen years for that. Before these two major trends, there simply weren't many people in the world with connected personal computers to get infected and there was only a handful of hackers compared to now.
However, if you consider the fact that before Windows provided something akin to a universal standard for all things PC (which led to all that rapid growth), all these assocated problems were effectively non-existent for 99% of all people - including the need for AV programs, spam blockers, etc. So yes, indirectly, Gates was responsible by being instrumental in making the entire platform viable for the masses.
And that's the correct perspective that people should start with when it comes to Windows. When people say (and you hear it all the time): 'Yeah, Microsoft has stuck us with a buggy, crappy, bloated piece of software in Windows and Gates is laughing all the way to the bank', they expose their own ignorance. You can take a fresh install of WinXP and do all sorts of crazy stuff with it and it holds up without crashing. Stick a memory stick in and it works. Attach an external hard disk thru the USB port, save files on it, and pull the USB plug out when it's finished and WinXP doesn't blink. When you consider what Microsoft has to anticipate when it comes to the variety of software & hardware that will be used with Windows, the challenge must be incredible.
I'm not an apologist for Microsoft. I'm well aware of the various faux-pas they have made, but I'm glad we have a stable standard to work with due to Gates' determination.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 2:41am |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16552
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | As a recent convert to WinXP I have been pleasantly surprised. Just as I loved the new features on my car (can't accidently leave the headlamps on ) I like the way XP lets me do just what SirDave has just said.
I also 'lost' a document yesterday and when I reopened Windows - there it was! automatically recovered for me. I was chuffed.
I haven't played any old games on it yet but I will get around to trying that and so maybe I'll grumble then. But right now, I'm a happy little vegemite.
People who complain about Bill Gates are just being jealous. If you don't like his product, live without it or do better. History will record his name as being influential world-wide. on't think it'll even mention his silent partner (whoever he is).
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 2:57am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5540
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Caroline (7 JUN 2006 2:41am)
As a recent convert to WinXP I have been pleasantly surprised. Just as I loved the new features on my car (can't accidently leave the headlamps on ) I like the way XP lets me do just what SirDave has just said.
I also 'lost' a document yesterday and when I reopened Windows - there it was! automatically recovered for me. I was chuffed.
I haven't played any old games on it yet but I will get around to trying that and so maybe I'll grumble then. But right now, I'm a happy little vegemite.
I went from Windows ME to XP and was very happy with the difference, it was like night and day. And I think you'll be pleased with how XP handles old games, something it does extremely well for a modern OS. Use emulators like DOSBOX and SCUMMVM, and your choices get even better. I'd been hanging on to my copy of Windows 98 and an older system of mine just in case there was something XP couldn't handle. So far I haven't needed it, which was a nice surprise.
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 3:19am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6694
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
The only two old Win 95 / 98 era PC games that have given me serious problems with Win XP have (sadly) been Grim Fandango and The Longest Journey. The first will not even install because the main setup file on the original disc seems totally invisible to the new OS and no amount of manual tweaking has fixed this dilemma yet. The sound in TLJ is just awful with ever increasing stops, delays and stutters all the way through. Again, no amount of advanced tweaking has made any difference, so the game is virtually unplayable on my new system as a result.
Otherwise, I have replayed dozens of older classics with and without DOS Box and SCUMM VM. Most have intsalled and played flawlessly and in most cases, far better than they did on my old Win 98 SE PC. It's especially nice to crank up all the sound options and graphical details in a higher res with no framerate loss on older 3D titles that my former system struggled to render. This fast, new Win XP box just breezes through them like they were little 2D puzzles or card games.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 4:07am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (6 JUN 2006 1:05pm)
[...]
MS-DOS 5, which was launched around that time was a rather big improvement, for me especially because moving from GW-BASIC to QBASIC opened up a whole new world of programming to me. No more line numbers and GOTOs, yay!
I thought QBASIC was pretty swift and cool. I beta tested v1, but never used it professionally for some reason--I think I was deeply entrenched in Turbo Pascal at the time.
When VB came out though, that was it--BASIC was finally home! I used it for years.
I write some C# now, still some VB (and VBA), but really don't code a lot in general lately. I sort'a miss it.
Chris
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 4:32am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By SirDave (6 JUN 2006 10:33pm)
I'm not an apologist for Microsoft. I'm well aware of the various faux-pas they have made, but I'm glad we have a stable standard to work with due to Gates' determination.
Well said. I just want to say, hey, SOMEONE has to be at the helm. I mean come on now.
The biggest dog will always get pooped on.
The hackers will always go for the biggest dog.
And 10-15 years ago, who knew what the hackers could do? The captains of the internet industry are learning right along with the rest of them. Meanwhile, they either need to innovate (and MS has spent billions in R&, regardless of what some here would have you believe to the contrary; yes, billions), or the "embrace and extend" (as the old motto went), which is ENTIRELY perfect business sense for a leader.
If we could go back in time and change history so that the industry was run by Digital or Sun, would they really have had the foresight to drive things in the consumer market as Gates has? I don't think so. Jobs? I don't know. Well, they all had their chance, didn't they?
Chris
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 3:00pm |
anthonyJourneyman
Posts : 1270
Joined: 11 JUN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (7 JUN 2006 4:32am)
Well said. I just want to say, hey, SOMEONE has to be at the helm. I mean come on now.
The biggest dog will always get pooped on.
The hackers will always go for the biggest dog.
And 10-15 years ago, who knew what the hackers could do? The captains of the internet industry are learning right along with the rest of them. Meanwhile, they either need to innovate (and MS has spent billions in R&, regardless of what some here would have you believe to the contrary; yes, billions), or the "embrace and extend" (as the old motto went), which is ENTIRELY perfect business sense for a leader.
If we could go back in time and change history so that the industry was run by Digital or Sun, would they really have had the foresight to drive things in the consumer market as Gates has? I don't think so. Jobs? I don't know. Well, they all had their chance, didn't they?
Chris
Careful Chris, this is how it starts. First, you defend the music and film industry from pirates in that P&R thread, then you defend Microsoft and Gates here. Next you'll be proclaiming that Bill O'Reilly is a guy "who tells it like it is" and wearing a "McCain in '08" t-shirt.
I'm worried. With this whole 666 thing, maybe Damian has already begun his work on the West Coast. Just like in the movie, he always starts with the dogs.
Ah, as they say in the Bronx, "I'm jus' playin' whichya, playa" But seriously, post something so that we know they haven't assumed control of your body.
|
| 7 JUN 2006 at 3:51pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (7 JUN 2006 4:07am)
I thought QBASIC was pretty swift and cool. I beta tested v1, but never used it professionally for some reason--I think I was deeply entrenched in Turbo Pascal at the time.
When VB came out though, that was it--BASIC was finally home! I used it for years.
I write some C# now, still some VB (and VBA), but really don't code a lot in general lately. I sort'a miss it.
Chris
During my teens I loved to play with QBASIC. Aah, the nostalgia... Then I got hold of QuickBASIC 4.5 and could compile .EXE files, which was like the coolest thing ever.
It's funny, QuickBASIC 4.5 was made in 1988 I think, but I don't know who really used it for anything serious. Most people only ever saw the simplified QBASIC, which was shipped with MS-DOS 5 and upwards. Then when the web started being widely used in the later half of the 90's, young QB fans with a love for game programming found each other online and started communities that to some degree still are alive today, despite the antiquated language. I was among that crowd for a couple of years and it's safe to say we made it do things Microsoft could never have realized it was possible to do with it. Complex linking setups made it possible to compile programs that were larger than what the compiler could handle in one chunk. The possibility to call interrupts with it made me and others find out how to add things like mouse support and build whole libraries of new functions that there were no commands for. EMS and XMS memory support was added to break the dreaded 640k limit. Direct hardware manipulation of the VGA card to change the 256 color palette and enable Mode X resolutions were added. Sound Blaster and AdLib interfaces to play digital audio and music with were developed... I even wrote a converting tool that allowed you to write text files with 286 Assembly code, adding features like line labels and stuff, that interfaced with the primitive DEBUG application in MS-DOS to generate machine language code strings that could be executed by QB, interfacing with function arguments passed on the stack. I used it to write things like sprite drawing functions with an invisible color and various other things that needed to be done fast for games. Ahh, those were the days.
QB programs were incredibly sluggish, but that was sort of a good thing because there were no easy ways once you really needed speed for doing complex things, so it forced you to think a lot about optimization and pushed me to learning Assembly programming and interfacing directly with hardware. Meanwhile, you could implement your ideas incredibly quickly in QB and test them on the fly. I wasn't even aware of many programming language standard procedures before moving on to other languages that did less for you automatically. Like, if you wanted to draw something on the screen, screen modes and drawing primitives were provided with the language. No add-on libraries or any fuss like that. You had your toolbox to play with from the beginning. It was the best when you were a teenager, didn't have the mathematical background to understand complicated algorithms and just wanted to make fun little games and show them off to your friends. There are good arguments to claim that a language creating such terribly slow executables, automating a lot without the option to let you control everything, allowing bad programming styles and just being generally uncool because only real hackers use(d) C and Assembly is a bad language, but despite all those things it was just plain fun and addictive and encouraged you to learn more about everything all the time! Where's a language like that today?
There were actually two more recent siblings to QuickBASIC: QuickBASIC v7.1 Extended (QBX) in 1990 and Visual BASIC 1.0 for DOS (complete with an ASCII graphics version of the original VB for Windows windowing system) in 1992, but those were never widely spread...
I did a few simple apps. in VB for Windows too... Never had as fun with it though, but that was mainly due to it being useless at making the kinds of programs I was into at the moment.
So, as far as I'm concerned, one of the best things Microsoft ever created were QBASIC/QuickBASIC, and they probably never realized that when they developed it.
|
| 8 JUN 2006 at 5:56am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By anthony (7 JUN 2006 3:00pm)
Careful Chris, this is how it starts. First, you defend the music and film industry from pirates in that P&R thread, then you defend Microsoft and Gates here.
Really, the two aren't relat ... okay, hey, give me a break -- it was the big 666 day.
Honestly, I don't defend the music and film industry in the least bit. I'm just always attempting to put a reality mirror in the pirates face about what it is they deny to be doing, regardless of their justifications.<respond over there for more>.
Next you'll be proclaiming that Bill O'Reilly is a guy "who tells it like it is" and wearing a "McCain in '08" t-shirt
Aiiiiiiyyyyyyeeeeee, never! Never, I tell you--NEVER!
I'm worried. With this whole 666 thing, maybe Damian has already begun his work on the West Coast. Just like in the movie, he always starts with the dogs.
Didn't that start in Western Paris?
Ah, as they say in the Bronx, "I'm jus' playin' whichya, playa" But seriously, post something so that we know they haven't assumed control of your body.
*click* [.bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.]
<This was test post. Please go back to bed. Nothing to see here. The poster is no longer online.>
|
| 8 JUN 2006 at 6:11am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Petter_Holmberg (7 JUN 2006 3:50pm)
[...] There are good arguments to claim that a language creating such terribly slow executables, automating a lot without the option to let you control everything, allowing bad programming styles and just being generally uncool because only real hackers use(d) C and Assembly is a bad language, but despite all those things it was just plain fun and addictive and encouraged you to learn more about everything all the time! Where's a language like that today?
From MS, that would be VB and C# .NET. They're strongly typed, so you can't get into trouble like you did with C or C++ (and you don't have to futz with managing memory). You can go ahead and write console apps--they don't have to be Windows apps/forms. You don't even have to bother with being object oriented if you don't want to.
But in the Visual Studio environment, intellisense basically lies all of your object model at your fingertips. It's really quite quick, cool, and eloquent. You don't have to use the VS IDE to compile VB or C# apps, but I think you're like me and would appreciate the rich environment and huge library support.
Too bad I haven't got a chance to code much over the past year. *sigh*
I did a few simple apps. in VB for Windows too... Never had as fun with it though, but that was mainly due to it being useless at making the kinds of programs I was into at the moment.
So, as far as I'm concerned, one of the best things Microsoft ever created were QBASIC/QuickBASIC, and they probably never realized that when they developed it.
I think they did realize it. Qbasic was adapted and extended (with better real time debugging) as the internal scripting language to an early enterprise level database program, and that eventually evolved into VB. Everything you had in QB exists in VB, except for what was deprecated due to obsolescence.
Really, today's VB is the cats meow, IMO.
Chris
|
| 10 JUN 2006 at 6:56pm |
| Deleted User | Gee, how come people who make statements that don’t mirror SirDave’s outlook are always doing things like “exposing their own ignorance”?
It’s not that challenging for Microsoft to “anticipate when it comes to the variety of software & hardware that will be used with Windows, the challenge must be incredible” when it predecides what software and hardware it’s going to have Windows accommodate. Don’t forget the instances when Microsoft used it’s dominance to try to make Windows computers incompatible with Sun’s JAVA.
Quote from http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.xml
Microsoft realized it needed to offer the Java technology to its developers and customers. But the technology also threatened Microsoft's monopoly hold on the desktop operating system market because the technology can be used to develop applications and products that are not dependent on the Windows operating system.
Microsoft's response to this issue was to license the technology from Sun in 1996, promising to deliver only compatible implementations of the technology. But Microsoft broke its promise, and began distributing incompatible implementations so that applications written to those implementations would run only on Windows.
End of quote.
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 12:10am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By wowforz (10 JUN 2006 6:56pm)
Gee, how come people who make statements that don’t mirror SirDave’s outlook are always doing things like “exposing their own ignorance”?
Because: a) SirDave 'lived' some of the early history of microcomputing and knew a number of people like Bill Gates enough to say 'Hello' and hobnob with them and wrote articles for some of the first computer magazines such as Byte & 80Microcomputing and b) because SirDave checks his facts before he posts.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 2:28am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By SirDave (11 JUN 2006 12:09am)
Because: a) SirDave 'lived' some of the early history of microcomputing and knew a number of people like Bill Gates enough to say 'Hello' and hobnob with them and wrote articles for some of the first computer magazines such as Byte & 80Microcomputing ...
And here all this time I thought you were just another pretty face on these forums.
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 2:37am |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16552
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | Ahhh Dave my old friend..... you may have known Bill Gates..... but were you savvy enough to buy shares in his company...
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 3:13am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Caroline (11 JUN 2006 2:36am)
Ahhh Dave my old friend..... you may have known Bill Gates..... but were you savvy enough to buy shares in his company...
Actually, that was a major part of my point somewhere above -like a lot of people trying to make a buck off the premise that there were 'millions to be made' in the 1980s, so many of us stuck with DOS-based programming thinking that that was always going to be the future while at the same time laughing at Gate's attempts to get Windows to rise to the level of a standard.
I laughed at EBay in its early days also come to think of it.
Never made millions off my program either....though I did get a grand piano out of it..... :'( :'(
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 3:21am |
MarkGuild Master
Posts : 3839
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Location: US, Georgia
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By SirDave (11 JUN 2006 3:13am)
Never made millions off my program either....though I did get a grand piano out of it...
...which is a better investment than most stock. I bought a new one thirty years ago for $3,200. It's recently been appraised for insurance purposes at $67,400.
-Edited for mistake in time-
Please proofread your posts carefully to see if you any words out.
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 4:21am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By SirDave (11 JUN 2006 12:09am)
Originally Posted By wowforz (10 JUN 2006 6:56pm)
Gee, how come people who make statements that don’t mirror SirDave’s outlook are always doing things like “exposing their own ignorance”?
Because: a) SirDave 'lived' some of the early history of microcomputing and knew a number of people like Bill Gates enough to say 'Hello' and hobnob with them and wrote articles for some of the first computer magazines such as Byte & 80Microcomputing and b) because SirDave checks his facts before he posts.
That very may well be, but it doesn’t make you a) impartial or b) the final arbitrator of all things digital :
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 4:25am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Mark (11 JUN 2006 3:21am)
Originally Posted By SirDave (11 JUN 2006 3:13am)
Never made millions off my program either....though I did get a grand piano out of it...
...which is a better investment than most stock. I bought a new one twenty years ago for $3,200. It's recently been appraised for insurance purposes at $67,400.
20 years ago would be 1986. What brand and size did you find for only $3,200? Was it smoke damaged or something? Or factory seconds? You do realize that price is unheard of, even back then when a new Yamaha 7 foot ran well in the tens of thousands of dollars.
|
| 11 JUN 2006 at 6:08am |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4953
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By wowforz (11 JUN 2006 4:21am)
Originally Posted By SirDave (11 JUN 2006 12:09am)
Originally Posted By wowforz (10 JUN 2006 6:56pm)
Gee, how come people who make statements that don’t mirror SirDave’s outlook are always doing things like “exposing their own ignorance”?
Because: a) SirDave 'lived' some of the early history of microcomputing and knew a number of people like Bill Gates enough to say 'Hello' and hobnob with them and wrote articles for some of the first computer magazines such as Byte & 80Microcomputing and b) because SirDave checks his facts before he posts.
That very may well be, but it doesn’t make you a) impartial or b) the final arbitrator of all things digital :
That may very well be, but if memory serves, so far support for wowforz outlook on things digital is, oh, around 0.
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
