M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity

[Farley Flud]

Wanna good laugh?

Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)

Now in that same cell enter "60."

What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).

The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!

The year 1900 is not a leap year!

I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.

OMFG! What junk!

I thank John Walker for this:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Farley Flud
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

That's correct for LibreOffice because the LO epoch, or Day 0, is
December 30, 1899. (Don't ask why.)

But for Microslop Excel, the correct date should be March 1, 1900
because the Excel epoch, or Day 1, is January 1, 1900.

Another superiority of LO Calc is that it handles dates before the
epoch (negative times) all the way back to the year 1582.

Microslop Excel cannot display dates before its epoch. Total junk!

But the Excel epoch can be changed to 1904 and then can use negative
time, but then this will fuck up a lot of other spreadsheets.

For dates M$ Excel is a total mess.

[-hh]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Farley Flud
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

Looking into the Excel bug, it actually appears to be more than merely
that 2/29/1900 doesn't exist:

Using a value of 1 ... it reports as being 1/1/1900. Good enough, but
it also reports that that was a Sunday. But calendars report that
1/1/1900 was actually a Monday

Values 2 thru 59: same as above: the day of the week is off by one.

60: the Wednesday, 2/29/1900 error

61 & higher: Thursday 3/1/1900 .. so the day of week is now correct.


-hh

[Farley Flud]

Post by -hh

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Farley Flud
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
OMFG! What junk!
https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00; or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

Looking into the Excel bug, it actually appears to be more than merely
Using a value of 1 ... it reports as being 1/1/1900. Good enough, but
it also reports that that was a Sunday. But calendars report that
1/1/1900 was actually a Monday
Values 2 thru 59: same as above: the day of the week is off by one.
60: the Wednesday, 2/29/1900 error
61 & higher: Thursday 3/1/1900 .. so the day of week is now correct.
-hh

If you read the article that I linked then you will discover
the total bullshit:

"But this is a Microsoft calendar, remember, so one must first look to make
sure it doesn't contain one of those bonehead blunders characteristic of
Microsoft. As is usually the case, one doesn't have to look very far.
If you have a copy of PC Excel, fire it up, format a cell as containing
a date, and type 60 into it: out pops “February 29, 1900”.

"By the time the 1900 blunder was discovered, Excel users had created millions
of spreadsheets containing incorrect day numbers, so Microsoft decided to leave
the error in place rather than force users to convert their spreadsheets,
and the error remains to this day."

It's fucking unbelievable! To save millions of dummy spreadsheets
Microslop decided to fudge the dates for all users. Incredible!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! If this were FOSS there would be an immediate
hostile, and fruitful, reaction.

[Tyrone]

On Jan 17, 2025 at 10:08:17 AM EST, "Farley Fucktard"

Post by Farley Flud
Wanna good laugh?
Fire up Microcrap Excel. Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date." (Accept the default display format.)
Now in that same cell enter "60."
What do you see? Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).
The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
The year 1900 is not a leap year!

As usual, Farley Fucktard is behind the times. This is a known issue AND it
was designed this way for a reason AND changing it now would break many
things.

<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/wrongly-assumes-1900-is-leap-year>

Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

But then, if you stopped making such a fucking fool of yourself, we would have
no one here to make fun of.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Maybe if you'd the link that I provided you would have discovered
the reason before your ridiculous searches.

But the fact that you continue to defend a company that is engaged
in such reprehensible cover ups indicates that you are a lackey
faggot.

Maybe faggot lackey?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
first place.

[DFS]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
first place.

Hard to believe you're too ignorant to understand why MS made the
decision to treat 1900 as a leap year.

[Tyrone]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
first place.

It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3. Multiplan (and
later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.

This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
in 1979 on the Apple II. Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
1983.

The only fool here is Farley, thinking he has "discovered" something. As
usual, he is a clueless child who has probably never heard of Lotus 1,2,3 or
VisiCalc.

BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tyrone
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Imagine that: businesses avoiding using a product because it doesn’t lie
to them. And here I thought the successful businesses were the ones who
were most adept at recognizing reality and dealing with it?

[Tyrone]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Imagine that: businesses avoiding using a product because it doesn’t lie
to them. And here I thought the successful businesses were the ones who
were most adept at recognizing reality and dealing with it?

Imagine that: Businesses use a product that gives them the results they are
looking for, without changing their existing code.

Like it or not, that's how businesses work. No one is interested in a
"better" product - even when it is "free" - if they have to waste time
changing code that has been working for decades.

Successful businesses realize what is best for the business TODAY. Very few
businesses need to worry about dates 125 years ago. And if they do, they would
have coded around this issue 40 years ago in Lotus 1-2-3. Which still works
TODAY in Excel.

Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tyrone
Like it or not, that's how businesses work.

The only businesses that “work” are the ones that stay in business.

Either the quality of the employee’s work is important to their employer’s
success, or it is not. If it is, then anything that helps the quality of
that work is a boon.

If it is not, then they are deadweight and might as well be jettisoned.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Tyrone
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

Speak for yourself, autococksucker.

A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
want to work with historical dates.

Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.

[Farley Flud]

Microslop is Selling Cars
--------------------------------

Microslop Dealer: Check out our new model.

Buyer: The paint job is a bit thin.

Microslop Dealer: Just take it for a test drive.

Buyer: OK. [Climbs in and starts] Hey! Where's the fucking reverse?

Microslop Dealer: Reverse? Who needs reverse? We always move
forward.

Buyer: [Climbs out] Fuck this pile of shit! [Exits]

Microslop Dealer: Hmm. Must be an intelligent scientist.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Joel]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Tyrone
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

Speak for yourself, autococksucker.
A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
want to work with historical dates.
Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.

I would rather use LO, but for many reasons beyond how 1900 is
treated.
--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Post by Joel

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Tyrone
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

Speak for yourself, autococksucker.
A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
want to work with historical dates.
Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.

I would rather use LO, but for many reasons beyond how 1900 is
treated.

Of course, in real life nobody need to care about it. The historians may
need to use dates in 1900's without having difficulties around that. For
the astronomers and economists, I'd like to know how they would have
wrong results.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Tyrone
Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

That's correct.

Talented Tyrone can only bend forward to suck his own cock
and not bend backward to lick his own asshole.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Farley Flud]

[snip outrageous shill]

Holey moley! This motherfucking asshole has got to be
on the payroll of some Microslop affiliate.

Read John Walker's link to discover the REAL cause for
failure.

John Walker, by the way, was the founder and CEO of AutoDesk,
which is the global standard for CAD software.

What has Tyrone accomplished? Maybe bending over to suck
his own cock? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Nope. There is no defense. Microslop Excel is FUBAR.
It's only because none of its idiot adherents, like Tyrone,
have a use for dates before 1901.

But any competent software makes no assumptions about user
preference. The only concern is to do it properly whatever
the scenario.

Microslop fails in this regard and there is no way to conceal
the fact. No fucking way.

Now cue the shills for more futile apologies.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I hope Tyrone will post an image of himself sucking his own
cock. That's quite an accomplishment.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud
Nope. There is no defense. Microslop Excel is FUBAR.
It's only because none of its idiot adherents, like Tyrone,
have a use for dates before 1901

Obviously the likes of "DFS" working for MS are the culprit.

But the way Excel should be used, and is used by those who have a
serious use for that type of tool, will avoid such blunders anyway.
Manipulating dates is always a sensitive work. Like measuring size.
Temperature, etc., and in serious work one does not leave it to anyone
else. You _code_ it for your own use.

Parts of Excel are designed for secretaries' use, so a secretary type of
sub-code-monkey like "DFS" must've been given the task to create. And
blunders won't even discovered by secretaries or "DFS" lamebrained
individuals, thy never encounter the flops that some other "DFS"
airheads have left behind in Excel.

Excel is the best product MS has had. From the beginning, I think, it
was the Excel that forced businesses to grudgingly accept Windows on
their computers. The reasons for that are also obvious. MS Word doesn't
even come close. Businesses need something that solves and provides for
their everyday needs. Letters and communications are just before and
after the fact activities. The heart of it is done by using Excel.

[DFS]

Post by Physfitfreak
Parts of Excel are designed for secretaries' use, so a secretary type of
sub-code-monkey like "DFS" must've been given the task to create. And
blunders won't even discovered by secretaries or "DFS" lamebrained
individuals, thy never encounter the flops that some other "DFS"
airheads have left behind in Excel.

Post some of your Excel sheets containing your VBA shit-code so I can
show you how to improve EVERYTHING.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by DFS
Post some of your Excel sheets containing your VBA shit-code so I can
show you how to improve EVERYTHING.

“Improving” VBA ... isn’t that like trying to make a soapbox cart run a
little faster? Ultimately you’re limited by the fact that ... it’s still a
soapbox cart.

[-hh]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
first place.

It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3. Multiplan (and
later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.

Huh. That's a TIL for me.

Post by Tyrone
This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
in 1979 on the Apple II. Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
1983.

Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

Post by Tyrone
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the
limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special
rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the
compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.


-hh

[Tyrone]

Post by -hh

Post by Tyrone

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
first place.

It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3. Multiplan (and
later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.

Huh. That's a TIL for me.

Yep. It was for Farley Fucktard too. You can tell by the way he is now
freaking out, posting pics from his personal gay porn collection in a childish
attempt to insult me for showing how clueless he is. Again.

Post by -hh

Post by Tyrone
This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
in 1979 on the Apple II. Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
1983.

Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

VisiCalc required only 32K in the Apple II. 32K. Which meant that the DOS,
Visicalc and your spreadsheet had to fit in 32K.

Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority. No one is
going to go over and above to handle all scenarios with 32K to work with.

Post by -hh

Post by Tyrone
BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the
limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special
rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the
compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.

True. But since most businesses - then and now - are not concerned with doing
math on dates in 1900, there is no need to worry about that. And if a business
IS concerned with 1900 dates, they have already worked around this issue
decades ago in VisiCalc and/or Lotus 1-2-3.

That work around still works today in Excel. And as time goes by, this issue
becomes less and less relevant to anyone.

Except probably to Farley Fucktard. In 6 months he will post this big
"discovery" again. Because he is that stupid. And childish.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Tyrone
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.

Then why allow them at all?

The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.

Then why allow them at all?
The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

If nothing else, this case illustrates that with Microsoft, as with all
commercial software, talented programmers are not making the design decisions.
Rather it is the MBAs who seek to maximize sales that are in charge. The end
result, over time, is software that is tailored to the lowest common denominator
(i.e. junk).

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.

Then why allow them at all?
The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

If nothing else, this case illustrates that with Microsoft, as with all
commercial software, talented programmers are not making the design decisions.
Rather it is the MBAs who seek to maximize sales that are in charge. The end
result, over time, is software that is tailored to the lowest common denominator
(i.e. junk).

Yes.

And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
an R&D institution.

The R&D juice you want to draw from their product does not warrant the
price they're asking for it. See, I'm again saying the same damn thing
here. The actual use you get from a car does not warrant the $80k that
sellers are asking you to pay. You can get that use by paying $1500 for
a second hand one.

The same thing for a computer. Are they selling it, and that's whatever
damn computer it happens to be, at a price above $80? They're ripping
you off. Cause the R&D use you can get from it, the real use, doesn't
warrant paying anything above it.

Same for Excel or Windows or any product MS has.

I have never bought something from them, new. For same reasons. I won't
buy a car above $2000 if you hold a shotgun to my head. Cause doing so
means I'm either Sheep or a crook treating others the same way, and I am
not Sheep, nor a crook.

The only new MS product that fell in my hands was given to me free of
charge for something I did for MS, and even that, I sold it a few days
later dirt cheap and got rid of it. It was a Windows 2000 CD months
before it became available for public.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Physfitfreak
And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
an R&D institution.

If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."

The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
on the desktop.

From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
rivals.

But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?

Nope. And that Microslop's only advantage.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Physfitfreak
And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
an R&D institution.

If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."
The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
on the desktop.
From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
rivals.
But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?
Nope. And that Microslop's only advantage.

I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.

But, when there are Capones around you, and yes they're all around you,
you can begin outsmarting them. Capones feed on the Sheep. If you're not
Sheep, you can outsmart them cause a "Capone" by definition has funny
weak points too. Weak points that healthy human beings don't have.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Physfitfreak

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Physfitfreak
And that's why it sells. MS did that with DOS too. MS is a business not
an R&D institution.

If you know about the history of Microslop, their mantra in the
early years was: "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run."
The goal of Microslop was to eliminate the superior Lotus 123
and the superior WordPerfect by leveraging their dominance
on the desktop.
 From the very beginning, Microslop was a corrupt, anti-competitive
organization that did not desire to produce superior products.
Their whole anti-competitive strategy was to quash their superior
rivals.
But did the average ignoramus asshole computer user ever notice?
Nope.  And that Microslop's only advantage.

I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.
But, when there are Capones around you, and yes they're all around you,
you can begin outsmarting them. Capones feed on the Sheep. If you're not
Sheep, you can outsmart them cause a "Capone" by definition has funny
weak points too. Weak points that healthy human beings don't have.

And that's, ... Begin with not buying their products but at the same
time using them! Never buy them new, and never pay for them more than in
pennies.

Do the same with cars :)

And computers, of course.

And food!

Oh, all sorts of Capones.

Even choose the gas station that does not sell gas belonging to Capones
you dislike. There are gas stations whose owners are in Mexico. There
are a few whose owners are Russians!

Starting November of 2023 I stopped buying products made in Israel. You
can detect them by the special form their barcodes have to be.

Opportunities are almost endless to silently fuck the Capones. Be
smarter, and it all ads up.

When Reagan called Iranians, "Barbarians", I convinced two bright
Iranian physicists who had just graduated, to return to Iran instead of
staying here serving this government. Almost all physics jobs are
government jobs in this country.

They've both been fruitfully employed in Iran, one in the nuclear
industry and one in education, and both recently retired.

That's how you deal with Capones.

[Tyrone]

Post by Physfitfreak
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.

Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
$25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of CP/M
(Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.

At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language. Bill Gates
quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.

This is all well known history.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Physfitfreak
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
$25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of CP/M
(Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language. Bill Gates
quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.

Had Tim Paterson "BOUGHT" 86-DOS from Kildall?..

[CrudeSausage]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Physfitfreak
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to new
tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products) for
$25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of CP/M
(Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital Research for
CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to recognize an
opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached Microsoft for a DOS,
because MS was already supplying the BASIC programming language. Bill Gates
quickly agreed, even though they had NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.

Yep, they've made documentaries and even made-for-TV movies about it.

[rbowman]

On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"

Post by Physfitfreak
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
new tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of
CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to
recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
programming language. Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had
NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3/


It has a link to even a longer article. My Luddite phase lasted until '93
so I went from MSDOS to Windows 3.1 without the intervening agony. Even
3.1 needed the Trumpet Winsock shareware if you expected to connect to
anytihng.

[CrudeSausage]

Post by rbowman

On Jan 18, 2025 at 5:05:50 PM EST, "Physfitfreak"

Post by Physfitfreak
I think those Capones even killed the developer of what they copied
their DOS from. The Capones were afraid he'll one day, this time
successfully, sue them when court of law will get better adjusted to
new tech realities.

Absolute nonsense.
Microsoft BOUGHT 86-DOS from Tim Paterson (Seattle Computer Products)
for $25,000 in 1981. Microsoft also hired Tim. 86-DOS was a port of
CP/M (Z80/8080 CPU) to the 8086/8088 CPU used in the IBM-PC. 86-DOS
became MS-DOS.
At the time, CP/M was the standard. IBM first approached Digital
Research for CP/M for the PC, but Gary Kildall was not smart enough to
recognize an opportunity knocking on his door. IBM then approached
Microsoft for a DOS, because MS was already supplying the BASIC
programming language. Bill Gates quickly agreed, even though they had
NOTHING at that point.
This is all well known history.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/18/how_windows_got_to_v3/
It has a link to even a longer article. My Luddite phase lasted until '93
so I went from MSDOS to Windows 3.1 without the intervening agony. Even
3.1 needed the Trumpet Winsock shareware if you expected to connect to
anytihng.

I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

[chrisv]

You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe,
but that's about it.

Eww. Hyperterminal. I hated that program. Thank goodness for
Teraterm, which we use constantly to this day, at work.

[CrudeSausage]

Post by chrisv

You could connect to a BBS using HyperTerminal, I believe,
but that's about it.

Eww. Hyperterminal. I hated that program. Thank goodness for
Teraterm, which we use constantly to this day, at work.

I recall applying for a job back in 2000 which required understanding of
Windows and computers. A guy from high school also applied and we both
answered differently for the question "Can HyperTerminal be used to
connect to the Internet?" He answered "no" whereas I brought up the
point that it can indeed be used to connect to the Internet assuming
that the Internet account you used provided access to a shell account,
something autoroute.net did back then. They just told me that I was
wrong even though it was indeed correct. He too thought that I was wrong
and acted like he was some sort of genius and would have already known
that if it were true.

I later proved it to them but, as usual, never got an apology.

[rbowman]

Post by CrudeSausage
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors of
Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine itself was
interesting.

https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/

I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world wasn't
ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said "You've got
to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and took it with
me.

[CrudeSausage]

Post by rbowman

Post by CrudeSausage
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors of
Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine itself was
interesting.
https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/
I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world wasn't
ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said "You've got
to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and took it with
me.

Which would be something like $3,000 in today's money. It looks pretty
nice, but I imagine that display didn't last long.

[rbowman]

Post by CrudeSausage

Post by rbowman

Post by CrudeSausage
I remember those days. I don't recall Windows having anything built-in
to let you connect to the Internet. You could connect to a BBS using
HyperTerminal, I believe, but that's about it. Unless the Internet
service allowed you shell access, there was nothing there for you.

Back when the MSDN subscription included a book of DVDs for all flavors
of Windows I upgraded to Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The machine
itself was interesting.
https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22981/Compaq-Concerto-2840A/
I don't think it was in production for more than a year. The world
wasn't ready for it. My neighbor worked in a computer store and said
"You've got to see what we just got in." iirc I forked over $1500 and
took it with me.

Which would be something like $3,000 in today's money. It looks pretty
nice, but I imagine that display didn't last long.

I didn't have a problem with the display. I wonder if it will still boot?

Considering the $1800 Osborne 1 CP/M 'portable' would be $5800 today it
was a steal. Eveb relative to the laptops of the day it wasn't expensive.
The IBM Thinkpads came out around that time and were pricier.

A desktop would have been cheaper but my day job for part of the year was
driving a truck. I'd take the winters off and go to southern AZ where I
had a minimal solar setup so power was a consideration. The Pen Computing
did work but I didn't use it often.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Post by Farley Flud
the superior Lotus 123

You never used it. It's obvious. As always you speak about what you
don't know. At work, they tried for three years to install it. And I was
happy they didn't manage to do it. Because if Microsoft products are
shit, Lotus Note managed to be worst. And it's not a little statement.

[Joel]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Tyrone
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority.

Then why allow them at all?
The Macintosh OS calendar only went as far back as 1904. This quite neatly
-- and elegantly -- solved the problem.

If nothing else, this case illustrates that with Microsoft, as with all
commercial software, talented programmers are not making the design decisions.
Rather it is the MBAs who seek to maximize sales that are in charge. The end
result, over time, is software that is tailored to the lowest common denominator
(i.e. junk).

Amazing how he got schooled so hard and is still brazenly ranting.
--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[-hh]

Post by Tyrone

Post by -hh
Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

VisiCalc required only 32K in the Apple II. 32K. Which meant that the DOS,
Visicalc and your spreadsheet had to fit in 32K.

Yup, what I was alluding to. I do recall reading a Apple ][ reference
book in that era where it had described the boot-up process .. IIRC, it
was something like that Apple DOS actually consisted of 3 DOS's due to
hardware limitations. The first one was that the ROMs were so small
that the floppy drive was only smart enough to read one track on the
disk, so the first DOS was instructions to read more of the floppy disk.

The second part did something more (I forget the description), and the
third part was the actual 'full' DOS for operating the whole system.

Post by Tyrone
Even in 1979, correctly handling dates in 1900 was not a priority. No one is
going to go over and above to handle all scenarios with 32K to work with.

True, back in that era, the concept of working extensively with dates
(especially backdating) was probably well beyond the originally intended
scope of VisiCalc.
I can recall seeing an Apple ][ with VisiCalc in our office in this
pre-IBM PC era ... IIRC, for navigating between cells, thumbing the
space bar changed the arrows keys from <left/right> to <up/down>.

-hh

[DFS]

Post by Farley Flud
The year 1900 is not a leap year!
I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.

Ignorant GuhNoo twat.

As Tyrone pointed out, it was done intentionally (for compatibility with
Lotus 1-2-3).

[Farley Flud]

Microslop is selling cars.
---------------------------------------

Microslop Dealer: Check out our new model.

Buyer: The fucking door won't open.

Microslop Dealer: We know. You have to enter through the
passenger door and then crawl over to the driver's seat.

Buyer: Why don't you just fucking fix it.

Microslop Dealer: We can't. It would break a lot of other
things.

Buyer: How much?

Microslop Dealer: Oh, it's not really for sale. We expect
you to rent in perpetuity.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Farley Flud
Microslop is selling cars.
---------------------------------------
Microslop Dealer: Check out our new model.
Buyer: The fucking door won't open.
Microslop Dealer: We know. You have to enter through the
passenger door and then crawl over to the driver's seat.
Buyer: Why don't you just fucking fix it.
Microslop Dealer: We can't. It would break a lot of other
things.
Buyer: How much?
Microslop Dealer: Oh, it's not really for sale. We expect
you to rent in perpetuity.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

:-)

MS: Check out our new Windows upgrade.

Physfit: Do you have the money?

MS: I don't need to have the money. You do.

Physfit: No, you do. Believe me.

MS: I don't understand.

Physfit: You motherfucker do.

MS: Hey! Watch your mouth sir.

Physfit: I want my money. Better hurry up too. My time is expensive.

MS: Are you crazy or something?

Physfit: Are you like "DFS" or some other dunce?

MS: Hey, you don't want it obviously. So if you don't mind...

Physfit: I do mind. Show me the money you owe this far.

MS: And how much money would THAT be??

Physfit: ($2000/second) times 42 secs so far.

MS: Ok. Never mind. If you're not going away, I sure am!

Physfit: Bye motherfucker. When you come back, don't forget to bring the
money with you. $112000.

[DFS]

Post by Physfitfreak
My time is expensive.

Hilarious! That's the funniest thing you've said in your entire life.