Re: www.microsoft.com sure needs a lot of silicon

joseph wrote in article ...
>
>
>-- joseph
>
>On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Tracy R. Reed wrote in article <5jpd3o$ao7$2_at_hole.sdsu.edu>...
>> >Srinivas Thimmiah (tsreddy_at_netcom.com) wrote:
 ..
>> Oh give me a break. OS/2 was out in full force prior to Windows 3.0's
>> introduction. OS/2 had the lead, why couldn't they keep it?
>
>They did keep the lead over windows NT and have maintained that lead to
>the present time. There are millions more OS/2 installs than WinNT.

Not many more millions. Prior to NT4 there was something along the line of 4 million copies of NT in use. NT 4 has been estimated to be selling at over 2 million copies a quarter (and there have now been 2 quarters of NT 4 sales.) At this rate by the end of the year NT will surpass even the best estimates of OS/2 in use.

>> It wasn't as
>> if everyone just jumped on Windows 3.0 the second it was released.
>
>FALSE. Win3.0 was shipped in the monopolisitic and anti-competitive
>preload agreements that the DOJ stopped. Everyone was given Win3.0 with
>their PC because the COST OF DOS with Win3.0 was LESS than just shipping
>DOS.
Win 3.0 was never bundled with Dos. This practice started after Win 3.1 was introduced.

Additionally, even after the Microsoft per processor liscensing was instituted, it was still cheaper to buy Dos than to buy Dos and Windows, thus a clone manufacturer could sell a cheaper system by supplying dos alone, especially since nobody really wanted Windows yet.

>>It
>> wasn't until 3.1 came out that any real applications started to hit the
>> market (almost 2 years later and just prior to the release of OS/2
 2.0).
>
>FALSE. It tooks years after 1992 for Win3.1 specific applications to
>arrive. Great applications like AMI PRO were a 3.0 application. ( I
 even
>found the win386 version of AMI PRO useful as a WYSIWYG application).
>Functional and powerfull apps arrived for win3.0 and most of these
>powerful apps were compatible with 3.0 long after win3.1 shiped. Win3.1
>was characterized, correctly, as a bug fix release.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Win 3.1 applications. I said It wasn't until 3.1 came out that Windows applications (3.0 or otherwise) started becoming plentiful. Up until this time it was difficult to find any windows apps in stores even if you wanted the poor selection that existed prior to Win 3.1.

3.1 was indeed a bug fix, but it also added OLE 2, which was a *MAJOR* feature. 3.1 also removed the dreaded real mode support.

>> In other words, there *WAS* an alternative before Windows became a
>> standard, but most people didn't want it.
>
>FALSE.
>
>You choose to agrue a story that has absolutly no basis in reality. You
>ignore the DOJ and ETC's analysis that MS's monopoly power was derived
>from their per-processor DOS/Win3.x prelaoding agreements. These
>monopolistic liscense were called illegal and had MS not agreed to stop
>them, the DOJ and ETC were ready to go to court to punish MS.

Will you quit lying? I never said any such thing. The per processor agreements did not start becoming truly effective until well into 92. OS/2 2.0 was released about the same time and had plenty of chance to become the big hit it was supposed to be.

>These facts are common knowledge and rountinely covered by the mass
 media.
>Choosing to fabricate an alternate reality where MS wins by virtue of
>ethical means is counter-productive. You need to know when to stop
>fighting a lost battle and stop pissing people off for the sake of your
>ego.

Joseph, you need to stop seeing conspiracy in every word. You need to start comprehending what people write. You need stop arguing about something that isn't being argued about.

>If you deny the obvious, then your opinions and arguments about the
>present are suspect.

Careful there, your words could be used against you.

>> Better does not equal successful. I won't start another Beta vs. VHS
>> argument but it's been proven.
>
>You apparently decided to start the argument by repeating the myth that
>inferior technology wins. It does if the monopoly owns the inferior
>technology.

Again, you choose to see something in a statement which isn't there. I never said inferior technology always wins. I said that better technology does not mean that it will be successful. There are plenty of cases where the best technology wins, but it's usually backed by the best marketing (or at least pretty good marketing).

>Factually the only big winners MS has are the ones they preload. Office
>and Win95.

Factually? I see... Visual Basic and Visual C++ aren't winners? They certainly seem to have the most developers developing with their products. Received on Mon Apr 28 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT