Prev: Chrome Browser -- Unchrome.exe vs. SWIron ?
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jul 5 21:20:01 2010
From: rotfl on 5 Jul 2010 07:05
Q wrote this:

rotfl wrote:
>> Win95/98 were successful, not because of their flaws but because they
>> offered users much more than what they replaced: DOS, and there was
>> no other mainstream alternative.
>

Q wrote:
>I disagree with so many of your assumptions that it's not worth getting
>into most of this.

Naturally you do but vague rebuttals mean nothing. I suggest you study
the history of the IBM PC, the explosion in demand for it, DOS and
Windows and acquaint yourself with the reality. That will show you
*why* Windows succeeded where DOS eventually peaked out.

hint: the IBM PC was a massive success in terms of sales volumes -
far bigger than S/360. That led to an explosion in demand for bigger
and bigger applications to run on the PC which DOS couldn't support.

>(An aside: it's not as if Microsoft's unethical, anti-competitive
>practices started with the release of Windows.)

Gates was always a very dubious character back in the days of DOS, but
it's ~irrelevant to the Windows issue. MS unethical practices expanded
as Windows became embedded in the marketplace and continue to this day.
But it doesn't change *why* Windows was successful despite its flaws:
there was no other mainstream alternative to DOS.


rotfl wrote:
>> If there had been a better op/sys that offered what Windows offered
>> 'without' the flaws, the market would have killed Windows PDQ. Be
>> clear about that. OS/2 didn't cut the mustard.
>>
>> Since then, MS have used every strong arm tactic to embed Windows
>> into the marketplace and it has largely succeeded because there is
>> still no alternative at this time for millions of users.

>Q wrote:
>Circular argument, if that's an argument at all. Once you assume that
>Windows would have failed had it not been the best (be clear about
>that), you're sort of stuck with your assumption/conclusion that it was
>actually the best. Your assumption that there's no alternative at
>*this* time is even more far out there.

It's not a circular argument, it happens to be the correct history.
You simply don't understand the issues.
It's a fact that when Windows was introduced it offered users something
that DOS did not offer and with the explosion in demand for the IBM PC
at that time, it supported a huge and growing demand for more powerful
apps.

You have personal views, but it remains true that IF there had been a
good viable alternative to Windows at the time, IT may have succeeded
over Windows. But there wasn't, so it didn't.

Gates can be credited with seeing the huge growing marketplace for PCs
with more power and took advantage of it with Windows.

Today there is Linux but as many people realise, it isn't ready for
prime time, so Windows continues in No.1 slot. The most that anyone can
say is that Windows *may* have peaked with XP and has now become too
big, too top-down and too restrictive. But that remains to be seen.

The market will eventually decide.


HTH

rotfl

From: »Q« on 6 Jul 2010 00:22
In <news:8440208c82c9127b0faa5a281f8809cf(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
rotfl <email.franklin(a)yahoo.com.sg> wrote:

> Q wrote this:
>
> rotfl wrote:
> >> Win95/98 were successful, not because of their flaws but because
> >> they offered users much more than what they replaced: DOS, and
> >> there was no other mainstream alternative.
> >
>
> Q wrote:
> >I disagree with so many of your assumptions that it's not worth
> >getting into most of this.
>
> Naturally you do but vague rebuttals mean nothing.

Interesting gibberish.

> It's not a circular argument, it happens to be the correct history.

Your misunderstanding of history is no argument at all, but you'd woven
it into a pretty tight circle of illogic.

> I suggest you study the history of the IBM PC, the explosion in
> demand for it, DOS and Windows and acquaint yourself with the reality.

I suggest you study that, but without hope that you would achieve an
acquaintance with reality.

> The market will eventually decide.

And again you conclude with your principal assertion. Feel free send
the drivel through through another re-mailer, if you think anyone finds
it interesting.
From: rotfl on 6 Jul 2010 15:29
Q wrote:
>Interesting gibberish.

It is interesting but it's not gibberish, believe me. The rise of
Windows over DOS happened for a reason: to fill a growing marketplace
demand. That is irrefutable except to those who choose to be in denial.
Flat-earthers abound.

Like I said, you don't understand the issues existant at the time which
gave rise to Windows. You have no idea how IBM viewed the PC and how
many others saw it: "a small DOS desktop computer terminal with limited
local processing capability" vs "the future of computing".

Remember that IBM was steeped in mainframe systems and the whole
corporation was structured to design, develop and market them. IBM had
mind-boggling m/f revenues to protect, MS didn't, and THAT is what gave
rise to the titanic clash between IBM v MS.

IBM produced the PS/2 to retake control of PCs and MS produced Windows.
The market decided. The rest is provable history.

Today, we are where we are with Windows still being the only mainstream
op/sys that can be used by virtually everybody on a PC. Linux doesn't
(yet) cut the mustard and *may be* eclipsed by other developments.
Time will tell and the market will decide in its usual inefficient way.

>> It's not a circular argument, it happens to be the correct history.

>Your misunderstanding of history is no argument at all, but you'd
>woven it into a pretty tight circle of illogic.

Utter nonsense. I repeat, you don't understand the issues.
You clearly have no idea what the PC marketplace was like at the time.
It was crying out for an op/sys that broke thru DOS limitations.

Enter: Windows.

>> I suggest you study the history of the IBM PC, the explosion in
>> demand for it, DOS and Windows and acquaint yourself with the
>> reality.

>I suggest you study that, but without hope that you would achieve an
>acquaintance with reality.

I don't need to study it thanks. I already know it intimately.
OTOH, you obviously have no idea and are posting insulting nonsense
from the pov of "I hate Microsft", which is distorting your views.

>> The market will eventually decide.

>And again you conclude with your principal assertion. Feel free send
>the drivel through through another re-mailer, if you think anyone finds
>it interesting.

Attack the messenger, ignore the message. I win, you lose.
Little I have said is an assertion per se, it is historical fact.

You, OTOH, are free to describe such as "drivel" but it simply shows
you up for a bigoted, uninformed fool that you clearly are.

I win, you lose. :-)

Footnote:
There is plenty for people to be angry with Microsoft about as there
was with IBM in its heyday. But never forget that in both cases they
opened up the use of computers more than any other corporations on
earth, albeit in different ways. They drove technology development to
where we are today. That is clear irrefutable fact which we should not
forget when we attack MS for strong arm tactics.

IBM and MS are perfect examples of how the American nation and its
culture of free market enterprise bring advancement to the table of
humanity. Thank God there are still people who understand that.


HTH

rotfl

From: rotfl on 7 Jul 2010 04:14
Q writ:

>In <news:Xns9DAC5E3831237bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>,
>Bear Bottoms <bearbotto...(a)gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> He pretty much nailed it.
>
>Who?

rotfl of course...are you having a problem following the thread?


rotfl

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Chrome Browser -- Unchrome.exe vs. SWIron ?
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jul 5 21:20:01 2010