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

 Tracy R. Reed wrote in article <5jpd3o$ao7$2_at_hole.sdsu.edu>...
>Srinivas Thimmiah (tsreddy_at_netcom.com) wrote:
>: You can burn me at the stake for heresy, but perhaps the server field
>: is now ready to standardize on ONE version of OS (just like the PC
>: industry standardized on MS/DOS) for all the advantages of economies
>
>The PC industry never standardized on MS-DOS willingly. MS forced it on
>the industry. We literally had no choice. Novell and several other
>companies tried to introduce their own DOS's, and MS crippled their
>software to recognize those other DOS's and their software refused to
>work under it. MS also sued Novell and perhaps someone else over the DOS
>issue. The PC industry has also standardized on Windows, for very much
>the same reasons.

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? It wasn't as if everyone just jumped on Windows 3.0 the second it was released. 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).

In other words, there *WAS* an alternative before Windows became a standard, but most people didn't want it.

>: of scale and the only company which is delivering a solution (however
>: bad it might be) is Microslop.
>
>Because they are the only ones capable of delivering a solution. Anyone
>else is run into the ground through hostile business practices. Are you
>really saying that *no* other company in the world is capable of coming
>up with an OS which is better than Windows? We all know that's gotta be
>bogus.

Better does not equal successful. I won't start another Beta vs. VHS argument but it's been proven. Received on Sat Apr 26 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT