• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Rob Spoor
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Tim Cooke
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Himai Minh

O-Yes

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1871
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ramlal Bhagat, a XII std. student from Haryana,India has developed a 32-bit operating system demonstrated to be far superior to any of the desktop operating systems in the market today. The program has been named "O-Yes". O-Yes provides operating system services on any Pentium-based personal computer (PC) and does not require MS-DOS as a base operating system. The operating system's capabilities were demonstrated in a student convention at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi, India.

HCL India Ltd. conducted benchmarks on the system and published results, which are partly reported here:

O-Yes is 34% faster than Microsoft's Windows 95 on similar hardware.
It is 29% faster than IBM's OS/2. O-Yes loads 54% quicker than Windows 95 or OS/2.
O-Yes has a customizable, user-friendly graphical User Interface (GUI), in which every program can be accessed with a maximum of two button clicks.
The operating system provides plug n play capability with numerous hardware devices.
It has a superior memory management function.
The operating system is compatible with Windows 95&WindowsNT 4.0.

HCL, Ltd. has offered an unknown amount to Ramlal Bhagat for purchasing the rights to the software. Ramlal Bhagat, described as "quiet and
philosophical" by his peers, was not available for comment. Suresh Reddy, spokesman for HCL Ltd.,said, "this is the operating system that the world has been waiting for". On HCL's move to purchase the rights to the software, he said, "We are here to ensure that Mr. Ramlal gets fair recognition and compensation for his innovation. HCL Ltd. can provide him a firm launch-pad to market software globally".

Is this the beginning of the end of the Bill Gates' monopoly? Let's see...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think Ramlal Bhagat will have to join the queue if he thinks O-Yes will break Microsofts monopoly.

Right now Id place him behind Steve Jobs, a plump penguin and a small demon. Possibly even behind a small bouncing ball (Amiga OS) and even BeOS!

Some figures on desktop marketshare
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This could be a fake mail making the rounds.

If not well done Ramlal Bhagat!!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Nice one, but 3 months and 13 days late.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

The operating system is compatible with Windows 95&WindowsNT 4.0.



I hope that doesn't mean it crashes every few minutes!
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well, the date of the same *news* on this Sun forum goes as far back as Jul 2000. ( So it's older than 3 months and 13 days.

Nope as far back as Aug 1999
[ July 13, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
44
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The fact that this is many years old was fairly obvious from inspection; Windows 95 and NT 4 compatibility -- as well as 32-bit architecture -- aren't exactly things to sing about in 2004.

Here's a copy from 1997:

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_220508150

HCL Limited is a real Indian company; they seem to be a PC VAR.
 
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
While we're on the topic of operating systems, Bill Gates has claimed that developing Longhorn, the next version of windows will cost as much as what it did to send a man to the moon. IIRC this is roughly $20 billion US Dollars.

This begs the question: are Microsoft in danger of bankrupting themselves from developing Windows? The costs of developing Windows 95 was far less than Longhorn, could one postulate that for MS to develop an OS 10 years from now could the costs be prohibitive? Could MS be forced to go down an open source route ala Linux, or a BSD style license or even shared source?

Mark
 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Probably another Times of India front page news article!! Sameer.. please, throw that newspaper into the trash can where it belongs. And stop polluting Javaranch with the trash from TOI
 
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
44
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
as much as what it did to send a man to the moon.



And the moon shot guys didn't even need lawyers!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1907
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
These kind of news appear frequently.5 years back,there was a news that one man had devised a formula of making Petrol/Gas with 2 cents/litre in Chennai.Popular media gave this news for days.It even blamed Govt. for not paying attention to this talented man.Govt. finally appointed commitee of scientists and found that that man was a fraud.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Arjun Shastry:
These kind of news appear frequently.5 years back,there was a news that one man had devised a formula of making Petrol/Gas with 2 cents/litre in Chennai.Popular media gave this news for days.It even blamed Govt. for not paying attention to this talented man.Govt. finally appointed commitee of scientists and found that that man was a fraud.



He wasn't of course (if you believe the conspiracy theorists).
The Government has every intention of having high gasoline prices in order to keep up their high incomes from gasoline taxes.
There were complaints to the national anti-cartel authorities here last year about price fixing in the oil industry (those complaints arise constantly but last year they at last investigated).
It was found (doing a paper study only, no records confiscated from any oil company or gas station) that there was NO price fixing going on.
Strangely gasoline prices are still the same at all pumps and always go up the exact same amount at all of them on the same day irrespective of the company... There is also a clearly visible combined effort of the large companies to drive out any small upstart, again anti-competitive behaviour.
Of course the government gets �1 a liter in taxes if not more at current gas prices, if there were no pricefixing those taxes would reduce to something like �.70 a liter which at millions of liters a day means a noticeable drop in income for them.

Same with record prices. Taxes on CD sales are 19%. At a price of (currently) �24 on average for CDs that's �4 on a CD. Without pricefixing the price of CDs might well drop in half leading to a 50% drop of taxes on those which at current sales levels could cost them well over a hundred million a year.

Of course in your case the guy WAS a fraud, but don't think that money and power don't play a part in the suppression of some knowledge or technology.
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
While we're on the topic of operating systems, Bill Gates has claimed that developing Longhorn, the next version of windows will cost as much as what it did to send a man to the moon. IIRC this is roughly $20 billion US Dollars.

This begs the question: are Microsoft in danger of bankrupting themselves from developing Windows? The costs of developing Windows 95 was far less than Longhorn, could one postulate that for MS to develop an OS 10 years from now could the costs be prohibitive? Could MS be forced to go down an open source route ala Linux, or a BSD style license or even shared source?

Mark



The moon program cost $20 billion in 1965 dollars which today amounts to over $100 billion due to that nice property known as inflation.
I don't know how much Windows 95 cost to create, it was probably not cheap either and Microsoft was a lot smaller at the time so the risk to the company might well have been comparable if not larger.

Please explain how going open source would allow Microsoft from still making a profit out of the product?
Everyone would just download a free copy without even the possibility of getting sued for damages...
Like it or not, open source is NOT a viable business model for a technology innovator and vendor. Only small companies relying mainly or completely on support contracts and customisation can survive on open source, that will never change.

Yes, development cost is spiralling. The same also happened in the aviation industry in the 1980s and 1990s (in fact it started there in the 1940s) as aircraft became ever more capable and complex.
A 1940s fighter aircraft would cost a few tens of thousands to build, a 1980s fighter aircraft cost tens of millions and the fighters currently in development will top the 100 million dollar price mark per unit.
That cost increase is in part due to inflation, in part due to the increasing complexity requiring more skilled labour as well as far more raw materials (including time).
In aviation there is the additional factor of ever smaller number of aircraft being built which means the spiralling development cost of those ever more complex platforms has to be spread over an ever smaller number of units sold.

Let's hope that that's not the case with Longhorn and Microsoft will still be able to profitably market it at a pricepoint similar to that of their current offerings (which if you noticed have for the last decade risen in price always LESS than the levels of inflation).
 
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If MS were to open-source their products, a lot of the development and/or r&d costs would be cut.

I agree with you that it is probably not in Microsofts best interests to pursue this path, but I thought I would highlight the problems facing Microsoft. This explains why Microsoft is eager to move into other markets such as mobile phones, Xbox, home appliances etc to keep momentum going.

But like it or not the costs of development are rising and developing Windows 2015 might be too expensive unless Microsoft attempts to curb those costs. The open source route would be one method. Outsourcing development completely, to a country where labor costs are extremely low is another. Either that, or have software write the OS!
 
Arjun Shastry
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1907
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

He wasn't of course (if you believe the conspiracy theorists).
The Government has every intention of having high gasoline prices in order to keep up their high incomes from gasoline taxes.


He was there.He mixed up something(which he didn't disclose)with some kind of leaves and produced something which he called 'almost Petrol'.People understood that it was all fraud when he declined to give presentation infront of camera.

Open Source is the future(atleast developing countries are concerned)of software.Majority of piracy takes place in these countries bcos of high cost of proprietory software .Many companies are now opting for Open Source.Recent example is SUSE aquisition by Novel.Red Hat is trying like anything in Asia to capture the market.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
A 1940s fighter aircraft would cost a few tens of thousands to build, a 1980s fighter aircraft cost tens of millions and the fighters currently in development will top the 100 million dollar price mark per unit.

B-2 Spirit bomber, US $1.3 Billion:
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
ah yes, the B-2.
Not a fighter of course but the same mathematics hold true.

It's also a prime example of unit cost spiralling out of control because of major reductions in the number of units purchased.
Initial plans were for an initial production run of 100 aircraft at appr. $250 million a piece with an option for another 100 at about $100 million each (entire development cost having been spread over the first 100 aircraft).
The cost of those first 100 was a fixed price contract, not fixed unit price.
As the USAF reduced the number of units ever further to the present 20, the unit cost went up and up until reaching the current $1.3 billion (Northrop was nice enough not to charge for the labour and materials to build the other 80 or it would have been even more).
Had the USAF purchased the entire batch of 100 aircraft they'd have paid little more (maybe $100 million or so), prime example of a bad decision.
The F-22 is going the same way. Initial plans called for 1500+ aircraft, this is now down to some 400 with the same total project cost...

The major question is whether the armed forces will be capable of performing their mission with the extremely limited amount of equipment they'll soon have.
The B-52 fleet is now 40 years old for the youngest aircraft, the F-15 fleet (which the F-22 is designed to replace) is nearing 30 years of age.
The AF expects to keep both types on for another 15-25 years at least, but everyone in the know seriously doubts they will be effective as more than cannonfodder in half that time.
The calculations for required units of especially the F-22 for continental air defense + overseas commitments haven't changed because they're dictated by geography.
Those numbers dictate 1500 aircraft (maybe a bit less if you delay the introduction of the aircraft into the ANG). At 400 units there won't be enough of them to do the mission...
 
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic