Re: what's the point in having it available if it's not a good idea to use it?
> Because deadline!
Bill is alleged to to said: "Windows 95 _will_ be out by Christmas, but we may have to delay December for a couple of months."
1377 posts • joined 27 Apr 2009
> Because deadline!
Bill is alleged to to said: "Windows 95 _will_ be out by Christmas, but we may have to delay December for a couple of months."
> it is well-known that he just said "yes" to IBM and *then* had just a week or two to actually come up with an OS.)
Both MS and SCP were full DRI OEMs. SCP with their Zebra range of Z80 machines and MS with the Z80 Softcard (for Applle II). They were close and worked together. Bill was quite aware of QDOS/86-DOS/SCP-DOS that was running at SCP. SCP even used the Microsoft languages: BASIC, COBOL, Pascal, with sales of computers.
> Ironically enough, Bill's company went on to produce a real-mode memory manager for Windows that blew the 640K limit away
Microsoft may well have written one but it was by no means the first to do this, nor the best. The mechanisms had been used for years with 8085, Z80 and 6502 CPUs. For example I have a machine here with an 8085AH2 '8bit' CPU with 512Kb RAM - 256Kb for OS and programs, 256Kb for a RAM disk running MP/M II.
> Base memory was limited to 640K due to processor design.
Not true. The 8086 and 8088 could access the full 1 megabyte (plus nearly 64K if memory management supported that). Many 8086 and 8088 machines could use almost all that 1 megabyte address space, I have several here*. It was the IBM PC that reserved address space for hardware and limited OS and Programs to 640Kb (or slightly more if one used an MDA Monochrome Display Adaptor).
* The ICL PC2 and Quattro 8086 computers used Concurrent-CP/M-86 which was muliuser on serial terminals. Around 980Kb was available to OS and programs.
> I don't remember writing that Microsoft invented stuff.
My point was that Microsoft didn't get market share because they had better products, they didn't.
> MS-Dos was beautiful after CP/M
MS-DOS 1 was complete crap: no hard disk support (CP/M did), corrupted diskettes if you swapped them (CP/M checked), EDLIN. MS-DOS 2 was not much better.
CP/M had been around for 6 years by the time MS-DOS came out and DRI had brought out MP/M - multi-user and pre-emptive multi-tasking (1978), MP/M II (1980) MP/M-86 (1980) and was demonstrating Concurrent-CP/M - pre-emptive multi-tasking with virtual screens.
MS-DOS was always behind the curve, limited to 32Mbyte partitions until MS-DOS 4 (though Compaq and others implemented patches to avoid the limit), MS-DOS 5 was nearly 2 years behind DR-DOS 5 and then DR-DOS 6 went to another level.
> Win 3.1x was very good for its time.
Yes, it took 3 versions plus a subversion to be better than GEM which preceded Windows 1 by a year and a half.
> I could never understand why Microsoft bought a big well known brand like Nokia then killed the brand name and shut most of it down.
Because Nokia was 90+% of Windows Phone and the agreement of paying Nokia $1billion per year to keep making WP was going to end. Nokia were already making Android X and would dump WP as soon as it could (having never made a profit from it in spite of $1billion).
MS never bought the brand name of Nokia, they only had it for a short time.
It wasn't MS that 'shut it down', it was the lack of sales. When the factory has no sales it stops production and fires the workers. They can try selling below cost (which was a lot of the sales were) but only for a limited time.
> Stacker -> DoubleSpace
Microsoft were sued by Stacker because MS _stole_ their code. Stac won $120million and briefly had a stop on sales of MS-DOS to get a further settlement.
> 1-2-3 -> Excel
> WordPerfect/WordStar -> Word
Microsoft made Windows run their products much better than competitor's ones by having a hidden API. They also changed the API to delay Lotus and WordPerfect getting their products to market.
> OS/2* -> Windows NT
What killed OS/2 was the inclusion of Windows 3.0. IBM was under anti-trust provisions and was required to not announce products more than 3 months in advance. They had Windows 3.1 running under OS/2 before it was released and announced it. Microsoft simply delayed 3.1 release until the 3 months was up and IBM had to release with 3.0.
Another ploy that MS did was when there was to be a new OS/2 release (on 22 diskettes) they went around all the diskette manufacturers and bought all of the next 6 months supply. They had several warehouses full of diskettes and eventually had to dump them, but it strangled supply of OS/2.
> Lotus Notes -> Exchange
> Netware -> Windows NT and later Active Directory
Microsoft introduced a server that shared connections to Netware so that 100 clients could run to a 10 client licenced Netware server. This strangled Novell's revenue. They also announced that "the next version of Windows will not support Netware". This is why Novell bought DRI so they could give DR-DOS away with Netware to ensure there were supported clients.
Microsoft didn't take over a market by having a better product.
> The Raspberry Pi 2 ... It is even capable of running windows 8.1
There is no version of Windows 8.x or RT that will run on Raspberry Pi. Windows 10 IoT will run (on a Pi2 but not on a Pi1) but it is not the Windows 10 that you are thinking of. It has no OS user interface - no launcher, no icons, no menu system, no way of choosing an application. On booting it will start the single Universal App that has been loaded onto the SD card. This app may, or may not, provide its own UI depending on what it has been written to do.
A full Windows 10 PC is required to develop and load the app to the RPi2. The only reason that you would write an app for a RPi2 (or other IoT board) is to access the GPIO (or an attached Arduino or similar if you need analogue) and thus the app would not be useful on any other type of Windows. It is similarly unlikely to be useful to run non-IoT apps on a RPi2.
> So the most number of .NET versions you actually have installed is 3,
My website logs report that Windows machines machines have up to 4 versions installed and this does not include versions 4.0, 4.5 or 4.6. Presumably these are simply not reported by the browser.
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729
> the utter rat's nest of shite that is Java
Java VMs are backward compatible so only one version is required. The compiler can also create output for older versions of the VM so a later compiler can compile for old VMs.
> Windows RT will be remembered mainly as one of Microsoft's biggest missteps
It seems that it did achieve one major aim of WoA (Windows on ARM) and that was to kill off WebOS. With WoA Microsoft could threaten _all_ discounts to HP if they were 'disloyal' and made ARM tablets running some other OS.
> Microsoft was first in the PC OS market
Nonsense. CP/M was first, by several years, in the personal computer and small business market. MS-DOS 1 was a poor clone of CP/M* (but for 8086). CP/M-86 even beat MS-DOS (though not on IBM PC). MS/PC-DOS succeeded because it was cheaper and IBM had funded the conversion of several applications: dBaseII, BASIC, Visicalc, Peach, etc.
> but not in mobiles.
Microsoft had mobiles: Pocket PC (2000) and tablets (1990s) and phones (2001).
Attempting to rewrite history merely shows your ignorance.
* MS/PC-DOS 1 only supported the CP/M API with a few minor changes and could only run .COM programs that had a 8085 memory model or a similar model with separate data and code segments (relocatable .EXE were in MS/DOS 2). Even the PSP was a clone of CP/M's 'page 0' and supported CP/M's BDOS calling methods.
> All of these things mean that I cannot use GPL3 code, because it opens us up to potential legal action.
Just because some code is available with a GPL3 licence does not mean that it cannot be obtained with a different licence. Much GPLx code is available with a commercial licence. You may have to pay for it, but that may be exactly what is required.
> foaming-at-the-mouth zealotism and fanatism
Chair throwing, monkey dancing, "Developer, developers, developers, ..."
> A range of OSs that can share applications and handle the UI elements locally combined with shared storage accessible from all devices/OSs on which the user account has access coud, if implemented well, be a very good solution to that problem (if you're willing to buy into the model).
Microsoft wants to increase its revenue from each user. This involves selling several devices to each, and then selling services to link them together.
Other companies are working on a different plan: each user only requires a single device. For example a convertible laptop/tablet, or a phone that becomes a desktop when plugged into a monitor or TV.
> It seems to me the dumbest thing Microsoft did was murder the Netbook market. Here they had their software running on cheap devices that people actually wanted to buy so they artificially crippled them ...
Not quite. Netbooks were designed to be really cheap internet access devices: DVD player screen, cheap atom CPU, SD card 'disk', Linux to avoid Windows licence, and cater for small RAM size. Microsoft resurrected XP at a small price (because Vista had no way of running) so that they could threaten the discounts of 'unloyal' partners. But even this required bigger screens, hard disks, RAM, faster and more expensive CPU, to the point where small laptops were the same price.
> this is as crazy as HP and Palm/WebOS.
To be fair to HP the dumping of WebOS was not their idea. Microsoft came along with WoA (Windows on ARM, later Windows RT) and pointed out that 'loyalty discounts' over _all_ Microsoft products depended on selling Windows on all possible products. It would be a shame if they lost hundreds of millions of dollars of discount in trying to sell some tablets.
It worked for netbooks.
> And the Pi 2 is a useful demo of an IoT type device that could make the idea more useful still,
While Windows IoT is another example of jumping on the band wagon it does not make it 'more useful'. A Pi, even the cheapest ones, can be useful as a complete computer (with Raspian or other) and can be used stand alone to develop 'normal' programs as well as ones that access the GPIO for sensors and motors. Microsoft requires a full Windows 10 PC to develop on while the 'Windows' Pi 2 only operates like a Arduino to run a single 'sketch' at a time. This also _requires_ it be a Pi 2, cheaper devices need not apply. If analogue input is required then a ($35) Pi 2 need an additional board (or an Arduino) to provide this. For many IoT jobs just the Arduino is required and these can be as cheap as $3 (for non-brand clones).
Also Microsoft is aiming IoT devices to communicate via Azure. Who wants to operate their lights or heating via servers possibly in another country ?
Many companies are developing products to give simple and cost effective solutions to linking 'intelligent' commodity products together. Microsoft is jumping on the band wagon to control and suck revenue from this market.
> panicking when he saw rivals bringing products to market, then trying desperately to rush out shoddy versions of them in order to compete.
That is what Microsoft has always done. Except between 'saw' and 'rush' they did 'vaporware' to slow down the market for 'saw'. Sometimes they simply bought rivals to shut them down. MS-DOS 1 was a shoddy version of CP/M or CP/M-86. Windows 1 was a shoddy version of Lisa/Mac and GEM. MS-DOS 5 was 20 months after DR-DOS 5.
> Gartner's blaming Windows 10 for the slowdown
And when the figures are down further in 6 months time they can still blame Windows 10.
> The very issue of Byte that reviewed the IBM PC had a Digital Research CP/M-86 ad with a guy in a bad leisure suit pointing to a chart showing the millions of units they'd ship over the next several years. Well, those millions of sales never happened, since IBM went with IBM PC-DOS/MS-DOS.
Actually, around that time DRI was demonstrating Concurrent-CP/M-86 which was pre-emptive multi-tasking with virtual screens. It was based on MP/M-86 (multi-user) which was the 8086 version of MP/M from 1978 and MP/M II of 1980. DRI also had DR-NET networking for those machines.
So while the IBM-PC ran PC-DOS 1 which couldn't even support hard disks (though it did have a cassette tape port - I have one here), DRI was in the multi-user, networking and multi-tasking business. DRI did ship millions of sales - just not in the same market.
> All businesses are emailing Word and Excel docs
And they should not be. doc and xls are not data exchange formats. They should be using an appropriate format such as PDF.
> MS Office is the foundation upon which modern businesses are built.
And they should not be. Businesses need to run order systems, inventory systems, payroll systems, purchasing systems, and many others. Using MS Office (or any other) as a mechanism for running a business is a very poor substitute.
> Bob only knows how to do it in Ubuntu and doesn't have a clue how to do it in Mint. This doesn't deter him and he manages to royally cock things up! Yes it's a very simplistic view but it gets the point across as to why businesses and people like to stick with Windows for the main part. People know it.
And the point you are making is exactly the issue about Windows 7, Windows 8.x and Windows 10.
Knowing how to do stuff in Win7 is no use at all when faced with 8 or 10.
>> the excitement around programming which came 35 years ago with the BBC Micro,
> Nothing else existed 35 years ago which could contend with what we discovered,
Nonsense. There were many small computers and a whole load of magazines and computing clubs in the late 70s and early 80s. The computers included the ZX80 (1980), ZX81 and Acorn's own Atom (1980) on which the BBC was based. There was also CP/M based machines (since 1975) and Apple II (1978). Some of these were available as kits (Atom, Apple I, ZX80) to both reduce the price and make them a learning experience.
Many of these machine also had 'user ports' which could be used for interfacing to sensors and motors.
> There are far many more ways to be creative than learning programming...
Back in the 80s schools were using BBCs and others as tools to learn science, ecology, maths and much else by utilising the interfacing capabilities. Later Microsoft convinced schools that computers should only be used to teach 'office skills' as consumers of Microsoft products.
The Pi and Arduino has changed that now. This is another step.
> The Pi is basically a cut-down desktop computer, so doesn't seem to have much value for anyone who already has a one.
No. It is a grown up IoT. It has a GPIO with digital and analogue IO so can be used with sensors and motors for all sorts of projects that are impossible for desktops. It can _also_ provide a full desktop facility so that development can be done onboard with direct access to the GPIO making it very suitable for prototyping.
> This is more of a bottom-up hardware device.
This does require a desktop to develop on, or a Pi.
> You'll get the best value out of it if people are writing in assembler.
Nonsense. Access to the IO is not an issue - libraries do that. Speed is not an issue for IoT or wearables.
> Yeah the world's not benefited at all from Bill's charitable foundation, him being the top philanthropist in American with donations of some $28 billion between him and his OH, and dedication to donate 95% of their wealth to charity.
But that is not from generating 'new' money, it has come from the costs applied to businesses and users that are customers of Microsoft.
"with a corresponding cost to all businesses and their customers." - a vast amount of businesses and people have made a lot of money out of Microsoft. My career and finances certainly has benefited thanks to Bill (and to some degree Sir Clive and Furber & Wilson).
Many made millions working for Microsoft or as shareholders. You seemed to have made lots of money off Microsoft _customers_ and _users_ (rather than "out of Microsoft").
However, you do reinforce my point that there is a large cost to businesses that use Microsoft products and their customers, you have been part of that cost.
> the world is not going to benefit from an Android/Apple duopoly.
Certainly the world has not benefited from a Windows/Apple duopoly. Any 'benefits' went to making Bill the richest man in world with a corresponding cost to all businesses and their customers.
It was Microsoft, via Elop, that helped create the alleged 'Android/Apple duopoly' by killing off Symbian, Maemo/Meego and everything else that Nokia was working on. But even then it is not a duopoly, there are many Android variants that are separate developments: Kindle, CyanogenMod, and many non-Google implementations. That was never allowed for Windows.
> Lumia: 8 million
> Non-Lumia Microsoft: 24 million
> Total Winphone: 32 million
"""Microsoft's sales are lagging even those of Windows Phone partners: 8.6 million Lumias (Nokia) moved versus 24.7 million non-Lumias sold."""
No, there were not 32 million Windows Phones sold. The 24.7 million is the total smart phones, of all OS, sold by Microsoft WP partners. I was said that Nokia sold more than 90% of all WP and this is likely to have continued. So total Winphone is more like 9.4million.
> if Linux-based systems were on sale in the high st. in places like PC World, they would attract some sales.
They are called Android and Chromebooks, and yes they do.
> App builder for android... Dropped like a hot potato and shuffled of to MIT for the educashun crowd.
You probably mean App Inventor. But you are being disingenuous, Hal Abelson, the leader of the team that created App Inventor, is (and was) a professor at MIT. The development was funded by Google but was always an MIT project.
> Redmond boasts it will sell a billion licenses in two years
I read that hey were going to give Windows 10 away for free, so where is the 'sell' ?
> Microsoft can finally crack down on DR-DOS!!
Except that Novell (as the purchaser of DRI) can crack down on MS-DOS first.
Actually DRI demonstrated to IBM that PC-DOS 1 infringed DRI's copyrights (allegedly it displayed a DRI copyright notice). The settlement included allowing DRI to use any part of the PC-DOS/MS-DOS API.
> A software API is like a novel's plot.
Not at all. It is like chapter or section names: Preface, Introduction, Chapter 1, ... , Appendix, Index.
"""IDC: Windows Phones to Overtake iPhone iOS by 2015 ...
Jun 12, 2011 - IDC predicts Android will have 43.8 percent of the market in 2015, followed by Windows Phone at 20.3 percent. Apple's iOS will trail at 16.9 ..."""
"""IDC claims Windows Phone will overtake IOS in 2016- The ...
Jun 7, 2012 - MARKET ANALYSTS at IDC have predicted that Windows Phone will take ... by 2016, overtaking Apple's IOS mobile operating system (OS)."""
> using the motion of vehicles along a road surface, and a moving plate in the road, to generate electricity.
The problem with that is that the vehicle would seem to be going slightly uphill, or like driving through molasses. Thus they would use more fuel than the generation of energy would warrant. The only point of it being that the car owner pays for the additional fuel use and the road owner gets the energy.
Same with walking: the pedestrian needs to buy more 'fuel' (food) after waling 'uphill'.
> Microsoft sell more Windows Phones in a quarter than Google do all Chrome devices in a year....
And Google (and others) sell twice as many Androids in a week than WP in a quarter.
Also Microsoft phones went from 40% market share (US) in 2007 to less than 3% worldwide currently while Chrome devices are still growing at 80% or so per year.
> If I want to run Ubuntu, I download a generic installation CD image, which will work with virtually any hardware.
No, it won't work with *any* hardware, it will only work with an x86-64 (a different version will work with x86) CPU, an IBM-PC clone BIOS (or UEFI) with PCI interfacing, a range of graphics cards and some other things. You seem to think that is what _every_ computer is. It happens that many are like that because they have become a commodity.
Some years ago it seemed that there would be greater variety with PPC, Alpha, MIPS, Itanium and others vying for top spot. There was also ACE as a spec. But AMD brought out x86-64 as a cheaper high performance chip and the others were forgotten.
ARM does not have a unified (ie like IBM-PC) BIOS to hide the implementation details yet so each ROM has to cater for the SoC differences.
> How does this prevent a clueless user from running something named hotchickcaledar.pdf that has an executable icon
The problem in Windows is that file may be an actual executable named hotchickcaledar.pdf.exe and only appears to be a PDF. Clicking on hotchickcaledar.pdf, in say email, can actually run it as a program.
On Unix like systems a file is not executable merely because it has a particular ending on the name, it must have an 'executable' pemission and emailed o downloaded files do not have that.
> Even a minimal Raspian is about 500MB.
And even that has far more than Windows 10 IoT - a full multitasking and multiuser OS, while Windows IoT can only run one app (at a time).
> Anyway a Raspian doesn't come with many servers and applications pre-installed.
It only installs what the user wants to install and doesn't throw everything at the SD. Additional software is just a mouse click away.
"""Raspbian comes with over 35,000 packages,"""
The point is that IoT development (or any other) can be done with just a Pi, an HDMI monitor or TV and a keyboard mouse. It has full GUI (Gnome or LXDE), languages and IDEs and can access the GPIO while writing the code.
With Windows 10 an additional full Windows 10 PC is also required. With Win10 IoT a Pi2 is required while production using Linux can utillise the cheaper Pi1 A or B or compute module.
> How much is really usable such "distro" but to show off among penguins,
The distro that I was thinking of: FreeSCO, is entirely usable for its designed purposes: gateway, router, firewall, plus various servers. It will certainly boot from USB or SD card but was intended for older hardware (even when first released) that often didn't support those.
> Do you remember that WfWG 3.11 was a single threaded (preemptive "multitasking"...
Certainly _not_ preemptive. It was co-operative, and often non-cooperative.
> GUI atop DOS, with no security at all, no concept of services/daemons, barely supporting simple networks, etc etc.? Software changed and improved a lot form those days, otherwise, think about what DOS was capable of doing in 640K RAM and 360K disks...
[MS-]DOS wasn't capable of very much at all. It needed applications to get anything useful done.
> Even the Raspbian image is a 990MB download (zipped).
Raspian is a full Linux distro and comes complete with a desktop GUI, servers, browser, applications and software development tools and everything else needed to work as a 'PC'.
> it's the price you have to pay to avoid to maintain n completely different versions of an OS.
As a comparison I can get a Linux distro that will boot off a 1.44 diskette and run as a firewall, SQL server, web server and other stuff.
> The really bubble shaped ones were Heinkels (looks like they were later branded BMW / Isetta...)
Rivolta in Milan started making the Isetta (meaning 'little iso (automobile)' ) in 1953. They sold the rights to that car to BMW in 1955.
The Heinkel Kabinen, started in 1955, was a completely different vehicle though similar in layout. Heinkel-Is were made in Northern Ireland, Trojan in England also manufactured them under its own band.
> For more complex systems "Clients and servers" is not the correct terminology: what you call a "server" in one instance can also be a "client" for another type of request.
The 'garage door' IoT program _is_ a server - is serves the purpose of driving the door open or closed. The mobile phone app _is_ a client to that. Whether there are other apps in the controller of the garage door that make other requests is irrelevant.
> The code to implement that protocol will be common to both.
Which is part of the 'base OS and network stack' and not a 'module of the app'. In any case your mobile phone app that has open and close buttons will not be using IoT protocols. It will send an encoded SMS message, or a coded phone call or an http message to your home network gateway which will extract orinterpret that to IoT protocol messages.
> It's possible to use different code to do the same thing on client or server, ..
In most cases they use different code because they are doing _different_ things. They may have the same 'base OS and network stack' but the _apps_ (in my example) are not 'doing the same thing' at all. One is displaying a GUI, sending requests and displaying status, the other is actioning the requests (driving the motors) while monitoring and sending status. The device may also have other programs that do other things such as sending video or acting as a alarm system.
> Your garage door example is too simplistic to illustrate the point.
It illustrates _my_ points fine. The base OS (Win10, Linux, Android, ..) may well have the same or similar code in each device and this will include networking using various protocols and libraries for various utility functions.
> What you're describing is the interfacing layer. If there is any intelligence at all on the "Thing" device, then that code will not be the totality of the application
Of course I am describing 'the interfacing layer', that is what the intelligence of the 'thing' is.
A dumb 'garage door opener' has a control board that drives the motor and responds to sensors. It may also respond to a remote control with an IR sensor or similar. An IoT garage door opener will have the dumb control board replaced by a RaspberryPi 'compute' module or an Arduino or similar that has Wifi or ethernet connection to the home network, and through this to the internet. The code on this will not only drive the opening and closing of the door and use sensors to stop, but may also detect any forcing of the door or other unusual conditions in order to send messages. It will respond to commands arriving on the network to show status, activate a sequence or other.
Your phone app will do _none_ of that. The phone app may connect and ask status, view history, (including notifications sent), and request open or close. The app running in your car may also, given that it gets to a certain GPS location, request an open or close. None of this is in the door opener.
> It is about distributing the intelligence to manage remote functions at the edge of the networks.
Exactly. The door opener (or light bulb, or fridge) _is_ the edge of the network, the intelligence is the Arduino or RaspberryPi compute module or similar.
You seem to want to distribute the 'intelligence' of _how_ the door should be opened and the sensors interpreted to your phone whereas the phone app should only need to send a 'please open' command and get back a status regardless of how that should be achieved.
The door and its RPi is the 'Thing'. It acts a server. The phone app (or car app, or other) is a client. There is almost no commonality of code - except the base OS and network stack. It is the same relationship as a web server and a web client - would you claim they are the same thing ?
> That application will need the same protocol support as those controllers, and because the software that implements those controllers runs on Windows10, the monitoring app can use it too.
No they won't. The IoT app will be using the GPIO to drive the motors and sense the positions and probably other safety sensors. The phone app will just have an Up and a Down button and will send a signal to the IoT device. The IoT app may have an up and down button too - probably real buttons - and LEDs to signal faults or safety issues, also on the GPIO, but that will simply set the local signal to operate.
You seem to have a strange idea of what embedded systems and IoT are about. The whole point of running on Raspberry Pi, or other boards, is that it has these interfaces to control and sense the hardware directly.
> No, they're not "very hardware specific",
The "hardware specific" refers to the type of devices the IoT app is intended to control or monitor - the "Things" in IoT. An app intended to monitor and control the air conditioning may have modules to work with different brands but it is unlikely to be useful for dealing with your garage door.
Neither of these examples would run on your phone or tablet because they wouldn't have the Arduino API nor the hardware: the analogue and/or digital ports needed.
> The other bull filled elephant in the room is the smart meter.
In this country smart meters are the norm, done years ago. No more meter men, no more estimated bills. The latest smart meter variation is 'pay as you go' (useful for landlords). Instead of a locked steel box that takes coins and must be emptied by a 'meter man' it can be done with some small electronics and a connection (actually with cell phone).
> likewise if I am cold I run the heating,
Some, when cold, go out into the woods and chop down a few branches or split a few logs and stoke up the fire. Others have a thermostat that keeps the temperature at various settings depending on the time. For them having to 'run' the heating sounds like too much effort.
> For the outside living world it is only niche users, many of which will have their own unique user profile, who will really be interested.
That was said about mobile phones.
Many already have internet connected TVs and PVRs. From a manufacturers point of view the use of commodity standardised electronics will be no more expensive than semi-mechanical or propriety controls so it will be cost effective to include additional features even if you don't use them.
> Wouldn't it be nice to pull out a smartphone, unlock the screen, find the right app, and navigate multiple controls on a small screen instead?"
You've not heard of NFC then ?
> No manufacturer (except maybe a complete world monopoly) can afford to make a product inoperable on its own.
I am not sure that anyone suggested that. Strawman perhaps?
> The whole "Smart Home" thing seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. My house works fine as it is,
You are likely to have plenty of automated mechanisms in your home already. Your fridge maintains a steady temperature, you heating keeps a set room temperature, your video recorder records at set times. You may have a garage door that opens when you push a button on a remote in your car.
All those devices have some sort of programmable logic (even if it is semi-mechanical) and various different ways of setting the required parameters. IoT is based on the idea of having some sort of common controlling hardware (such as a RaspberryPi compute module or Arduino), a common way of setting parameters and communication so that the parameters can be reset and mechanisms activated.
If you wanted a garage door opener then you could choose a current model that requires a specific dedicated remote control, or you would be able to choose an IoT model that has the electronics handled by a small commodity CPU or Microcontroller (RPi or Arduino or such) that communicates to your home network. With the IoT version you would be able to use an app on your phone (suitably configured) to operate your door. Or if your car was connected and had GPS then entering a particular location (your driveway perhaps) could signal the door to operate.
Or just open the door yourself with no assistance, no one cares if you want to do that.
> If these corporations can't agree on a single open standard they will be having this very argument in 10 years time,
There is still no 'open standard' for remote controls, yet people still buy devices with remotes. It doesn't need a single standard. It may be useful to have a limited number of ways to get access from outside to the home network (with authentication) but I won't be using the 'oven' app on my phone to operate the video recorder; I don't need my garage door app to work with my neighbours doors - in fact it is better if they don't.
> Windows 1.0 was text based. And it, too had overlapping windows.
Wrong on both counts. Windows 1.0 was graphical. Though there was more text than graphics the text was not in the 80x25 grid of the text interfaces.
"""Windows 1.0 does not allow overlapping windows. Instead all windows are tiled. Only dialog boxes can appear over other windows."""