My first "tool" written with Lazarus

[TRon]

Not the pixel editor itself, but rather to a different time when you only had a resource editor, and then when Delphi came out and having to create own icons for your applications and compared to now, lower specs, less colors... and the start of DLL hell. Shall I go on...

Ah, the stone-age tooling and environment back then. Yes, I agree that was not a very fun time. Dunno if TPW rings a bell with/for you. That was the (horrific) time before Delphi saw the day of light. What a disaster that was.

[msintle]

Not the pixel editor itself, but rather to a different time when you only had a resource editor, and then when Delphi came out and having to create own icons for your applications and compared to now, lower specs, less colors... and the start of DLL hell. Shall I go on...

Ah, the stone-age tooling and environment back then. Yes, I agree that was not a very fun time. Dunno if TPW rings a bell with/for you. That was the (horrific) time before Delphi saw the day of light. What a disaster that was.

That wasn't any different than what Visual C++ was at the time - and the real disaster, if you ask me, seeing how Visual C++ is still exactly the same - is that those tools have somehow managed to eclipse Delphi.

[VisualLab]

Not the pixel editor itself, but rather to a different time when you only had a resource editor, and then when Delphi came out and having to create own icons for your applications and compared to now, lower specs, less colors... and the start of DLL hell. Shall I go on...

Ah, the stone-age tooling and environment back then. Yes, I agree that was not a very fun time. Dunno if TPW rings a bell with/for you. That was the (horrific) time before Delphi saw the day of light. What a disaster that was.

That wasn't any different than what Visual C++ was at the time - and the real disaster, if you ask me, seeing how Visual C++ is still exactly the same - is that those tools have somehow managed to eclipse Delphi.

Well, Borland's management did a lot to waste the good ideas and work of their programmers. People from the management board of this company thought that they would quickly transform Borland from a medium-sized company into a corporation. They sold everything that wasn't intended for developers. At the same time, they bought various small companies that developed half-baked tools intended for large software companies. The management did not think about offering any additional software, not necessarily intended for programmers (product diversification). Additionally, managing the company according to Jack Welch's patterns resulted in the company's collapse (which was already completely obvious at that time). Of course, Microsoft didn't stand by idly either. But it is hard to blame the competition for competing on the market.

[silvercoder70]

In the early 90s I was maintaining a program which was a Directory (before CRMs became all the rage) application written in TP and had custom DB. I was also developing TSRs in C. When Windows started to become a thing, Paradox had a Windows front end. And you also had to ship the Paradox RT as well.

Now whether it was a Paradox thing or programmer related - it was buggy. At that stage, all the back-end tools were in C (that I wrote). So when Delphi 1.0 came out it was a real boon?

[msintle]

Not the pixel editor itself, but rather to a different time when you only had a resource editor, and then when Delphi came out and having to create own icons for your applications and compared to now, lower specs, less colors... and the start of DLL hell. Shall I go on...

Ah, the stone-age tooling and environment back then. Yes, I agree that was not a very fun time. Dunno if TPW rings a bell with/for you. That was the (horrific) time before Delphi saw the day of light. What a disaster that was.

That wasn't any different than what Visual C++ was at the time - and the real disaster, if you ask me, seeing how Visual C++ is still exactly the same - is that those tools have somehow managed to eclipse Delphi.

Well, Borland's management did a lot to waste the good ideas and work of their programmers. People from the management board of this company thought that they would quickly transform Borland from a medium-sized company into a corporation. They sold everything that wasn't intended for developers. At the same time, they bought various small companies that developed half-baked tools intended for large software companies. The management did not think about offering any additional software, not necessarily intended for programmers (product diversification). Additionally, managing the company according to Jack Welch's patterns resulted in the company's collapse (which was already completely obvious at that time). Of course, Microsoft didn't stand by idly either. But it is hard to blame the competition for competing on the market.

Wow, it never occurred to me to think of it the way that Borland was one of the first brand-name casualties of Silly Valley to fall to Jack Welch.

There's been many exhaustive explanations of why Borland failed, but this one is the most succinct thus far.

This might also provide an amusing read:

https://www.installaware.com/blog/?p=598

[VisualLab]

Wow, it never occurred to me to think of it the way that Borland was one of the first brand-name casualties of Silly Valley to fall to Jack Welch.

Borland was not a victim of Jack Welch himself. It was just that the people running the company were modeled on Welch's management patterns (methods) (which were heavily promoted in the US media at the time, and various journalists and MBAs raved about it and praised it). It gave Borland's management people short-term benefits, but in the long run it led to Borland's downfall. There were more such companies and their failures.

Meanwhile, Microsoft survived, despite various stupid ideas and failed investments, because they had Windows and MS Office. And now they are diligently ruining the platform (Windows) on which they made (and still make) big money. They are doing this because in the case of the desktop operating system they have no significant competition.

There's been many exhaustive explanations of why Borland failed, but this one is the most succinct thus far.

At that time I was following the IT news in newspapers and on websites about Delphi and Borland.

[TBMan]

In the early 90s I was maintaining a program which was a Directory (before CRMs became all the rage) application written in TP and had custom DB. I was also developing TSRs in C. When Windows started to become a thing, Paradox had a Windows front end. And you also had to ship the Paradox RT as well.

Now whether it was a Paradox thing or programmer related - it was buggy. At that stage, all the back-end tools were in C (that I wrote). So when Delphi 1.0 came out it was a real boon?

Ah, DOS 2.0/3.0, and a TSR pop up called SideKick..... I had 2 floppy drives in my IBM PC too, lol. I remember when I upgraded my PC to 256K, lol.

https://winworldpc.com/product/sidekick/1x

[msintle]

Borland was not a victim of Jack Welch himself. It was just that the people running the company were modeled on Welch's management patterns (methods) (which were heavily promoted in the US media at the time, and various journalists and MBAs raved about it and praised it). It gave Borland's management people short-term benefits, but in the long run it led to Borland's downfall. There were more such companies and their failures.

Yeah, that guy. It seems to me he single-handedly ruined corporate America, digging them a hole into which they gleefully jumped, and can now no longer climb out of, even as their lives depend on it.

Meanwhile, Microsoft survived, despite various stupid ideas and failed investments, because they had Windows and MS Office. And now they are diligently ruining the platform (Windows) on which they made (and still make) big money. They are doing this because in the case of the desktop operating system they have no significant competition.

I'd say Satya is embodying the WelchVision(TM) and doing his best to kill Windows. Have you used any of his products lately? From English language grammar mistakes to just overall atrophy, they are not being spared.

I'd also say macOS has been getting better as Windows has been getting worse over the past decade, but please don't read this as praise of Apple - it is not. macOS has its own idiosyncracies which truly make it as insufferable as Windows, in just different and novel ways compared to Windows itself.

[msintle]

Ah, DOS 2.0/3.0, and a TSR pop up called SideKick..... I had 2 floppy drives in my IBM PC too, lol. I remember when I upgraded my PC to 256K, lol.

https://winworldpc.com/product/sidekick/1x

Great site, really. I've downloaded many a product for my physical and virtual antique software operating systems (not in the least of which being OS/2).

Got to say though, I don't see how Sidekick makes sense for either Windows or OS/2, of course.

Still, a throwback to the golden age of computing if you ask me - an era where they made our lives better and served us, instead of 5 techno fiefdoms as it is today.