OS Wars, Episide X.4 - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on OS Wars, Episide X.4 - Microsoft Windows ; The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv > > wrote > on Fri, 06 May 2005 07:41:09 -0500 > : > > Randy Howard wrote: > > > >>In article , > >>charlesjo@gmail.com says... > >>> The ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: OS Wars, Episide X.4

  1. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 06 May 2005 07:41:09 -0500
    > <4dpm715vulcf71a94r6k030s38a9qdftkn@4ax.com>:
    > > Randy Howard wrote:
    > >
    > >>In article <1115356298.615331.84030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
    > >>charlesjo@gmail.com says...
    > >>> The force has revealed the following:
    > >>>
    > >>> 1. Apple is first to release a cool OS
    > >>
    > >>No OS/2 actually met that description when it was first released.
    > >>Compared to its peers at the time, it was "way cool, d00d, w00t".

    > >
    > > AmigaDOS was the first "cool" desktop OS. Multitasking, baby!
    > >

    >
    > Well, the first few releases were a bit buggy (1.2 was usable,
    > but in 1.0 and 1.1 the Guru visited often). :-)
    >
    > Nevertheless, I've yet to see the multiple resolution
    > screen concept on any other 'puter.


    What was this "mutiple resolution screen concept"? BeOS had nine
    desktops and each could have its own resolution setting.

    --

    Peter

  2. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    ed wrote:

    > Chad Irby wrote:
    > > In article <_4Xee.14004$J12.531@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
    > > "ed" wrote:
    > >
    > > > In news:cirby-2BA250.00000007052005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com,
    > > > Chad Irby typed:
    > > > >
    > > > > "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
    > > > >
    > > > > In the early days of the PC market, you have Apple on one side,

    > and
    > > > > the huge, established, powerful IBM on the other. When IBM came

    > out
    > > > > with the PC, large corporations bought them (often because IBM

    > had
    > > > > sold them all of their Big Iron) in massive numbers.
    > > > >
    > > > > If someone at IBM hadn't screwed up and allowed Microsoft to keep

    > the
    > > > > rights to MS-DOS, the history of the computer industry would have

    > been
    > > > > vastly different for the last 25 years.
    > > >
    > > > that's all nice, except it ignores:
    > > > 1- given that logic, we should all be using os/2

    > >
    > > By the point OS/2 came out, the mass of buyers had already made the
    > > market mutate to the point that the driving force wasn't IBM, but

    > "IBM
    > > clones + MS-DOS." This isn't a single-event process, but a

    > moderately
    > > fast evolution.

    >
    > os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by then,
    > and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone else
    > was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple was a
    > relatively big player, etc...
    >
    > > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users, includes

    > office,
    > > > which ibm never had a hand in

    > >
    > > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient inertia

    > to
    > > the point where "everyone was using DOS."

    >
    > so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    > wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)? obviously not everyone started
    > using excel because everyone else was using excel, because they
    > weren't.


    Because it came pre-installed on every Windows machine, seemingly
    "free", by order of Bill Gates.

    And since it was "free", why would anyone go out and purchase WP and
    Lotus?

    --

    Peter

  3. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    On Sat, 7 May 2005 20:43:21 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    Hayes) wrote:

    >ed wrote:
    >
    >> Chad Irby wrote:
    >> > In article <_4Xee.14004$J12.531@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
    >> > "ed" wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > In news:cirby-2BA250.00000007052005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com,
    >> > > Chad Irby typed:
    >> > > >
    >> > > > "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
    >> > > >
    >> > > > In the early days of the PC market, you have Apple on one side,

    >> and
    >> > > > the huge, established, powerful IBM on the other. When IBM came

    >> out
    >> > > > with the PC, large corporations bought them (often because IBM

    >> had
    >> > > > sold them all of their Big Iron) in massive numbers.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > If someone at IBM hadn't screwed up and allowed Microsoft to keep

    >> the
    >> > > > rights to MS-DOS, the history of the computer industry would have

    >> been
    >> > > > vastly different for the last 25 years.
    >> > >
    >> > > that's all nice, except it ignores:
    >> > > 1- given that logic, we should all be using os/2
    >> >
    >> > By the point OS/2 came out, the mass of buyers had already made the
    >> > market mutate to the point that the driving force wasn't IBM, but

    >> "IBM
    >> > clones + MS-DOS." This isn't a single-event process, but a

    >> moderately
    >> > fast evolution.

    >>
    >> os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by then,
    >> and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone else
    >> was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple was a
    >> relatively big player, etc...
    >>
    >> > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users, includes

    >> office,
    >> > > which ibm never had a hand in
    >> >
    >> > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient inertia

    >> to
    >> > the point where "everyone was using DOS."

    >>
    >> so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    >> wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)? obviously not everyone started
    >> using excel because everyone else was using excel, because they
    >> weren't.

    >
    >Because it came pre-installed on every Windows machine, seemingly
    >"free", by order of Bill Gates.
    >
    >And since it was "free", why would anyone go out and purchase WP and
    >Lotus?


    I don't remember Word or Excel ever being bundled with Windows for
    free.

    Word pushed out WordPerfect due to a marketing error by the
    WordPerfect Corporation. In the early 1990's they released a major
    upgrade, and almost immediately issued another, expensive upgrade.
    WordPerfect users were already pissed by the function keys changing in
    every new release (remember that keyboard overlay you needed to use
    WordPerfect?), IIRC, so this was the straw that broke the camel's
    back. Add to that the fact MS was very accommodating in the "help'
    provided within Word for WordPerfect users to convert.

    I have no idea how Excel beat Lotus 1-2-3, but I doubt it was due to
    Excel being free.
    --
    "I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
    agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
    -- ZnU, March 17,2001

  4. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    On Sat, 7 May 2005 20:36:02 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    Hayes) wrote:

    >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 06 May 2005 07:41:09 -0500
    >> <4dpm715vulcf71a94r6k030s38a9qdftkn@4ax.com>:
    >> > Randy Howard wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>In article <1115356298.615331.84030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
    >> >>charlesjo@gmail.com says...
    >> >>> The force has revealed the following:
    >> >>>
    >> >>> 1. Apple is first to release a cool OS
    >> >>
    >> >>No OS/2 actually met that description when it was first released.
    >> >>Compared to its peers at the time, it was "way cool, d00d, w00t".
    >> >
    >> > AmigaDOS was the first "cool" desktop OS. Multitasking, baby!
    >> >

    >>
    >> Well, the first few releases were a bit buggy (1.2 was usable,
    >> but in 1.0 and 1.1 the Guru visited often). :-)
    >>
    >> Nevertheless, I've yet to see the multiple resolution
    >> screen concept on any other 'puter.

    >
    >What was this "mutiple resolution screen concept"?


    You could have different resolution screens layered on the same
    monitor. You could drag down one screen, and view a portion of the
    other, different resolution screen behind it (and listen to your multi
    sync monitor scream). You could display parts of two (or more)
    different resolution screens on the same monitor, at the same time.

    To switch between screens, you only had to drag the title bar down a
    bit, and click the "To Front" gadget on the screen behind.

    > BeOS had nine
    >desktops and each could have its own resolution setting.


    But only one is visible at a time. Changing screens changes the
    resolution of the monitor.
    --
    "I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
    agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
    -- ZnU, March 17,2001

  5. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    In article <1115491502.654076.139580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    "ed" wrote:

    > os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by then,
    > and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone else
    > was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple was a
    > relatively big player, etc...


    The biggest reason OS/2 died on the vine was the IBM was looking down
    the barrel of a big antitrust action by the government, and were afraid
    to push it too hard. There were also some non-subtle threats from
    Redmond about how IBM computers might suddenly be "noncompatible" with
    Windows.

    > > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users, includes office,
    > > > which ibm never had a hand in

    > > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient inertia to
    > > the point where "everyone was using DOS."

    >
    > so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    > wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)?


    Well, a couple of DOS releases where the competing packages "failed to
    function correctly" had a bit to do with it. Microsoft actually got in
    some trouble when they broke WordPerfect one time (the WP folks came up
    with the DOS patch, I think).

    > obviously not everyone started using excel because everyone else was
    > using excel, because they weren't.


    Nope, by that point, they were all using DOS (or early Windows
    versions), and Microsoft pointed to some very favorable performance
    comparisons (some of which, it later turned out, were due to things like
    forcing delays on competing packages). There was also the "we can buy
    our computer and our major business packages all from one vendor"
    factor, which helped more than raw performance.

    --
    I don't have a lifestyle.
    I have a lifeCSS.

  6. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    Edwin wrote:

    > On Sat, 7 May 2005 20:43:21 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    > Hayes) wrote:
    >
    > >ed wrote:
    > >
    > >> Chad Irby wrote:
    > >> > In article <_4Xee.14004$J12.531@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
    > >> > "ed" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > > In news:cirby-2BA250.00000007052005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com,
    > >> > > Chad Irby typed:
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > In the early days of the PC market, you have Apple on one side,
    > >> and
    > >> > > > the huge, established, powerful IBM on the other. When IBM came
    > >> out
    > >> > > > with the PC, large corporations bought them (often because IBM
    > >> had
    > >> > > > sold them all of their Big Iron) in massive numbers.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > If someone at IBM hadn't screwed up and allowed Microsoft to keep
    > >> the
    > >> > > > rights to MS-DOS, the history of the computer industry would have
    > >> been
    > >> > > > vastly different for the last 25 years.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > that's all nice, except it ignores:
    > >> > > 1- given that logic, we should all be using os/2
    > >> >
    > >> > By the point OS/2 came out, the mass of buyers had already made the
    > >> > market mutate to the point that the driving force wasn't IBM, but
    > >> "IBM
    > >> > clones + MS-DOS." This isn't a single-event process, but a
    > >> moderately
    > >> > fast evolution.
    > >>
    > >> os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by then,
    > >> and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone else
    > >> was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple was a
    > >> relatively big player, etc...
    > >>
    > >> > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users, includes
    > >> office,
    > >> > > which ibm never had a hand in
    > >> >
    > >> > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient inertia
    > >> to
    > >> > the point where "everyone was using DOS."
    > >>
    > >> so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    > >> wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)? obviously not everyone started
    > >> using excel because everyone else was using excel, because they
    > >> weren't.

    > >
    > >Because it came pre-installed on every Windows machine, seemingly
    > >"free", by order of Bill Gates.
    > >
    > >And since it was "free", why would anyone go out and purchase WP and
    > >Lotus?

    >
    > I don't remember Word or Excel ever being bundled with Windows for
    > free.


    Free in "inverted commas" = free as in "comes with the hardware/OS and
    you have no option but to accept it or we can't sell you it because
    otherwise Bill Gates will cancel our deep discounts and we'll be out of
    business".

    > Word pushed out WordPerfect due to a marketing error by the
    > WordPerfect Corporation. In the early 1990's they released a major
    > upgrade, and almost immediately issued another, expensive upgrade.
    > WordPerfect users were already pissed by the function keys changing in
    > every new release (remember that keyboard overlay you needed to use
    > WordPerfect?), IIRC, so this was the straw that broke the camel's
    > back. Add to that the fact MS was very accommodating in the "help'
    > provided within Word for WordPerfect users to convert.
    >
    > I have no idea how Excel beat Lotus 1-2-3, but I doubt it was due to
    > Excel being free.


    IIRC, the Lotus people thought Windows would never catch on and
    persisted with development under DOS.

    --

    Peter

  7. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    Edwin wrote:

    > On Sat, 7 May 2005 20:36:02 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    > Hayes) wrote:
    >
    > >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > >
    > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
    > >>
    > >> wrote
    > >> on Fri, 06 May 2005 07:41:09 -0500
    > >> <4dpm715vulcf71a94r6k030s38a9qdftkn@4ax.com>:
    > >> > Randy Howard wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>In article <1115356298.615331.84030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
    > >> >>charlesjo@gmail.com says...
    > >> >>> The force has revealed the following:
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> 1. Apple is first to release a cool OS
    > >> >>
    > >> >>No OS/2 actually met that description when it was first released.
    > >> >>Compared to its peers at the time, it was "way cool, d00d, w00t".
    > >> >
    > >> > AmigaDOS was the first "cool" desktop OS. Multitasking, baby!
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Well, the first few releases were a bit buggy (1.2 was usable,
    > >> but in 1.0 and 1.1 the Guru visited often). :-)
    > >>
    > >> Nevertheless, I've yet to see the multiple resolution
    > >> screen concept on any other 'puter.

    > >
    > >What was this "mutiple resolution screen concept"?

    >
    > You could have different resolution screens layered on the same
    > monitor. You could drag down one screen, and view a portion of the
    > other, different resolution screen behind it (and listen to your multi
    > sync monitor scream). You could display parts of two (or more)
    > different resolution screens on the same monitor, at the same time.
    >
    > To switch between screens, you only had to drag the title bar down a
    > bit, and click the "To Front" gadget on the screen behind.


    Cool. Thanks Edwin.

    > > BeOS had nine
    > >desktops and each could have its own resolution setting.

    >
    > But only one is visible at a time. Changing screens changes the
    > resolution of the monitor.


    Yes.

    I guess these concept aren't useable today when most users have TFT
    screens that are good only at one resolution.

    --

    Peter

  8. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4


    Peter Hayes wrote:
    > ed wrote:


    > > so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    > > wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)? obviously not everyone

    started
    > > using excel because everyone else was using excel, because they
    > > weren't.

    >
    > Because it came pre-installed on every Windows machine, seemingly
    > "free", by order of Bill Gates.
    >
    > And since it was "free", why would anyone go out and purchase WP and
    > Lotus?


    uhh, no, office was always priced very competitively, but was far from
    free, nor did it come even close to being preinstalled on every windows
    machine...


  9. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4


    Chad Irby wrote:
    > In article <1115491502.654076.139580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    > "ed" wrote:
    >
    > > os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by

    then,
    > > and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone

    else
    > > was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple

    was a
    > > relatively big player, etc...

    >
    > The biggest reason OS/2 died on the vine was the IBM was looking down


    > the barrel of a big antitrust action by the government, and were

    afraid
    > to push it too hard.


    what?! you mean it wasn't because everyone else was using dos? and i
    notice you didn't even attempt to address the issue of the other os's.

    > There were also some non-subtle threats from
    > Redmond about how IBM computers might suddenly be "noncompatible"

    with
    > Windows.


    os/2 came out waaaay before most people cared about, or used windows.

    > > > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users,
    > > > > includes office,
    > > > > which ibm never had a hand in
    > > > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient

    inertia to
    > > > the point where "everyone was using DOS."

    > >
    > > so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    > > wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)?

    >
    > Well, a couple of DOS releases where the competing packages "failed

    to
    > function correctly" had a bit to do with it. Microsoft actually got

    in
    > some trouble when they broke WordPerfect one time (the WP folks came

    up
    > with the DOS patch, I think).


    i used wp 5.1 for a long, long time and don't remember any issues; do
    you have a reference?

    > > obviously not everyone started using excel because everyone else

    was
    > > using excel, because they weren't.

    >
    > Nope, by that point, they were all using DOS (or early Windows
    > versions), and Microsoft pointed to some very favorable performance
    > comparisons (some of which, it later turned out, were due to things

    like
    > forcing delays on competing packages). There was also the "we can

    buy
    > our computer and our major business packages all from one vendor"
    > factor, which helped more than raw performance.



  10. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    No viruses for one

    CharlesJo.com
    Weather is nice in Silicon Valley today


    ed wrote:
    > Charles Jo wrote:
    > > We were exposed to Lotus' 2nd generation spreadsheet on NeXT boxes

    in
    > > college and man that was some really cool spreadsheeting. I forgot
    > > what it was called but it had all kinds of features that I don't

    > think
    > > Excel has yet, 10+ years later.

    >
    > like what?



  11. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    In news:1115505361.762122.248270@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com,
    Charles Jo typed:
    > ed wrote:
    >> Charles Jo wrote:
    >>> We were exposed to Lotus' 2nd generation spreadsheet on NeXT boxes
    >>> in college and man that was some really cool spreadsheeting. I
    >>> forgot what it was called but it had all kinds of features that I
    >>> don't think Excel has yet, 10+ years later.

    >>
    >> like what?

    >
    > No viruses for one


    no, really, what features? you said it had "all kinds of features" that
    excel still doesn't have- name just 3 cool ones.



  12. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:10:33 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    Hayes) wrote:

    >Edwin wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 7 May 2005 20:43:21 +0100, peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
    >> Hayes) wrote:
    >>
    >> >ed wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Chad Irby wrote:
    >> >> > In article <_4Xee.14004$J12.531@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
    >> >> > "ed" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> > > In news:cirby-2BA250.00000007052005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com,
    >> >> > > Chad Irby typed:
    >> >> > > >
    >> >> > > > "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
    >> >> > > >
    >> >> > > > In the early days of the PC market, you have Apple on one side,
    >> >> and
    >> >> > > > the huge, established, powerful IBM on the other. When IBM came
    >> >> out
    >> >> > > > with the PC, large corporations bought them (often because IBM
    >> >> had
    >> >> > > > sold them all of their Big Iron) in massive numbers.
    >> >> > > >
    >> >> > > > If someone at IBM hadn't screwed up and allowed Microsoft to keep
    >> >> the
    >> >> > > > rights to MS-DOS, the history of the computer industry would have
    >> >> been
    >> >> > > > vastly different for the last 25 years.
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > > that's all nice, except it ignores:
    >> >> > > 1- given that logic, we should all be using os/2
    >> >> >
    >> >> > By the point OS/2 came out, the mass of buyers had already made the
    >> >> > market mutate to the point that the driving force wasn't IBM, but
    >> >> "IBM
    >> >> > clones + MS-DOS." This isn't a single-event process, but a
    >> >> moderately
    >> >> > fast evolution.
    >> >>
    >> >> os/2 came out in the late 80's; the battle was hardly done by then,
    >> >> and people were hardly using ms software simply because everyone else
    >> >> was. at that point, os/2 was out, dr-dos was competitive, apple was a
    >> >> relatively big player, etc...
    >> >>
    >> >> > > 2- the software that everyone uses, including mac users, includes
    >> >> office,
    >> >> > > which ibm never had a hand in
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Those all came well after the market had developed sufficient inertia
    >> >> to
    >> >> > the point where "everyone was using DOS."
    >> >>
    >> >> so why did everyone start using office, since everyone was using
    >> >> wordperfect and lotus 1-2-3 (on dos)? obviously not everyone started
    >> >> using excel because everyone else was using excel, because they
    >> >> weren't.
    >> >
    >> >Because it came pre-installed on every Windows machine, seemingly
    >> >"free", by order of Bill Gates.
    >> >
    >> >And since it was "free", why would anyone go out and purchase WP and
    >> >Lotus?

    >>
    >> I don't remember Word or Excel ever being bundled with Windows for
    >> free.

    >
    >Free in "inverted commas" = free as in "comes with the hardware/OS and
    >you have no option but to accept it or we can't sell you it because
    >otherwise Bill Gates will cancel our deep discounts and we'll be out of
    >business".


    If you say so, but I have no recollection of such forced bundling of
    Word and Excel.

    I have seen plenty of PC bundled with WordPerfect Office or IBM's
    office suite, however.

    >> Word pushed out WordPerfect due to a marketing error by the
    >> WordPerfect Corporation. In the early 1990's they released a major
    >> upgrade, and almost immediately issued another, expensive upgrade.
    >> WordPerfect users were already pissed by the function keys changing in
    >> every new release (remember that keyboard overlay you needed to use
    >> WordPerfect?), IIRC, so this was the straw that broke the camel's
    >> back. Add to that the fact MS was very accommodating in the "help'
    >> provided within Word for WordPerfect users to convert.
    >>
    >> I have no idea how Excel beat Lotus 1-2-3, but I doubt it was due to
    >> Excel being free.

    >
    >IIRC, the Lotus people thought Windows would never catch on and
    >persisted with development under DOS.


    Okay, I'll take your word for it.
    --
    "I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
    agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
    -- ZnU, March 17,2001

  13. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    In article <1115502229.715062.268200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
    "ed" wrote:

    > what?! you mean it wasn't because everyone else was using dos? and i
    > notice you didn't even attempt to address the issue of the other os's.


    You keep trying to argue differently, but you keep missing the concept
    of "time passes and things change."

    --
    I don't have a lifestyle.
    I have a lifeCSS.

  14. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    In news:cirby-DB2671.19261207052005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com,
    Chad Irby typed:
    > In article <1115502229.715062.268200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
    > "ed" wrote:
    >
    >> what?! you mean it wasn't because everyone else was using dos? and
    >> i notice you didn't even attempt to address the issue of the other
    >> os's.

    >
    > You keep trying to argue differently, but you keep missing the concept
    > of "time passes and things change."


    perhaps you forget that your initial post to me was in response to my
    comments contending that there had to be a reson for folks using ms products
    only because everyone else does, as they didn't all start out all using ms
    products. you responded w/ "nobody ever got fired for buying ibm", ignoring
    that ibm had competitive products to ms products which people weren't
    buying, which kind of shot down your initial argument. to address that, you
    tried to say that was because ibm didn't push os/2. so, folks weren't
    buying ibm, they were buying ms, even though nobody ever got fired for
    buying ibm, and they weren't buying ms simply because everyone else was
    using it, because everyone wasn't. so what was it?



  15. Re: OS Wars, Episide X.4

    In article ,
    "ed" wrote:

    > In news:cirby-DB2671.19261207052005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com,
    > Chad Irby typed:
    > > In article <1115502229.715062.268200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
    > > "ed" wrote:
    > >
    > >> what?! you mean it wasn't because everyone else was using dos? and
    > >> i notice you didn't even attempt to address the issue of the other
    > >> os's.

    > >
    > > You keep trying to argue differently, but you keep missing the concept
    > > of "time passes and things change."

    >
    > perhaps you forget that your initial post to me was in response to my
    > comments contending that there had to be a reson for folks using ms products
    > only because everyone else does, as they didn't all start out all using ms
    > products.


    No, that was quite clear. They bought *IBM* products, which happened to
    have Microsoft-owned DOS on them. That was the start of what happened.

    > you responded w/ "nobody ever got fired for buying ibm", ignoring
    > that ibm had competitive products to ms products which people weren't
    > buying,


    False.

    The *start* of the timeline I gave was what you say above, which I then
    expanded on, showing how thing changed over the course of the next
    decade or so (early 1980s on).

    > which kind of shot down your initial argument.


    ....which kind of *ignored* everything except the first sentence of my
    point.

    > to address that, you
    > tried to say that was because ibm didn't push os/2.


    ....which happened in the late 1980s-early 1990s timeline. Time passes.
    Things change.

    And not everything happens because of one particular incident or company.

    --
    I don't have a lifestyle.
    I have a lifeCSS.

  16. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    Seriously, as I recall, programmability was simple and intuitive.

    CharlesJo.com
    Oh Yeah


    ed wrote:
    > In news:1115505361.762122.248270@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com,
    > Charles Jo typed:
    > > ed wrote:
    > >> Charles Jo wrote:
    > >>> We were exposed to Lotus' 2nd generation spreadsheet on NeXT

    boxes
    > >>> in college and man that was some really cool spreadsheeting. I
    > >>> forgot what it was called but it had all kinds of features that I
    > >>> don't think Excel has yet, 10+ years later.
    > >>
    > >> like what?

    > >
    > > No viruses for one

    >
    > no, really, what features? you said it had "all kinds of features"

    that
    > excel still doesn't have- name just 3 cool ones.



  17. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    Charles Jo wrote:
    > ed wrote:
    > > In news:1115505361.762122.248270@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com,
    > > Charles Jo typed:
    > > > ed wrote:
    > > >> Charles Jo wrote:
    > > >>> We were exposed to Lotus' 2nd generation spreadsheet on NeXT
    > > >>> boxes
    > > >>> in college and man that was some really cool spreadsheeting. I
    > > >>> forgot what it was called but it had all kinds of features that

    I
    > > >>> don't think Excel has yet, 10+ years later.
    > > >>
    > > >> like what?
    > > >
    > > > No viruses for one

    > >
    > > no, really, what features? you said it had "all kinds of features"
    > > that
    > > excel still doesn't have- name just 3 cool ones.

    >
    > Seriously, as I recall, programmability was simple and intuitive.


    how so? you must be able to provide more details (and more features in
    general); and how about providing a couple cool features? c'mon, it
    can't be that hard!


  18. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    In article <1115443080.211523.316340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
    "Charles Jo" wrote:

    > We were exposed to Lotus' 2nd generation spreadsheet on NeXT boxes in
    > college and man that was some really cool spreadsheeting. I forgot
    > what it was called but it had all kinds of features that I don't think
    > Excel has yet, 10+ years later.
    >

    Do you mean Improv?

    --
    RickG...
    BTW - for those who don't like reading headers, my ISP is telus.net

  19. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    In article <1115517095.535887.128590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
    "ed" wrote:

    > Charles Jo wrote:
    > >
    > > Seriously, as I recall, programmability was simple and intuitive.

    >
    > how so? you must be able to provide more details (and more features in
    > general); and how about providing a couple cool features? c'mon, it
    > can't be that hard!


    Here's a nice little article (from 1993) about Improv, the spreadsheet
    in question:



    --
    I don't have a lifestyle.
    I have a lifeCSS.

  20. Re: OS Wars, Episode X.4

    Thank you! That was the one, I believe.

    CharlesJo.com
    Salutes Improv



    Chad Irby wrote:
    > In article <1115517095.535887.128590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
    > "ed" wrote:
    >
    > > Charles Jo wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Seriously, as I recall, programmability was simple and intuitive.

    > >
    > > how so? you must be able to provide more details (and more

    features in
    > > general); and how about providing a couple cool features? c'mon,

    it
    > > can't be that hard!

    >
    > Here's a nice little article (from 1993) about Improv, the

    spreadsheet
    > in question:
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > I don't have a lifestyle.
    > I have a lifeCSS.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast