Very Computer

by **Brian Knot** » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00

There has been a lot of talk on Usenet for many years about the impending
demise of the Macintosh, OS/2, or anything else that competes with Microsoft.

Lately, it seems only to be intensifying, as various "defectors" join
the Microsoft FUD team.

Putting aside the validity of the assertions of these people, I would ask the
people who seem to advocate that there only be one choice: Microsoft Windows,
if they really think that such an environment would be healthy.

Don't you think that at some point, innovation would be stifled?

Wouldn't a true Microsoft monopoly be bad, in the long run, even for Windows
users?

Don't you think that some very bright people would be lost to other fields?

Would there be any fun left in a Windows-only world?

Shouldn't everyone, including Windows advocates, be advocating more
competition in operating systems and application software, not less?

_____________________________________________________________________
Brian Knotts http://www.europa.com/~bknotts

by **Speeds** » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:> There has been a lot of talk on Usenet for many years about the impending
> demise of the Macintosh, OS/2, or anything else that competes with Microsoft.

> Lately, it seems only to be intensifying, as various "defectors" join
> the Microsoft FUD team.

> Putting aside the validity of the assertions of these people, I would ask the
> people who seem to advocate that there only be one choice: Microsoft Windows,
> if they really think that such an environment would be healthy.

> Don't you think that at some point, innovation would be stifled?

> Wouldn't a true Microsoft monopoly be bad, in the long run, even for Windows
> users?

> Don't you think that some very bright people would be lost to other fields?

> Would there be any fun left in a Windows-only world?

> Shouldn't everyone, including Windows advocates, be advocating more
> competition in operating systems and application software, not less?

I'm not sure if windows users feel that way. I for one would not like to
see a company dominated product. On the other hand, if you read alot of
these posts on this newsgroup, you will see that Mac fanatics feel just
the opposite.

by **Paul Dwerryhou** » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>Putting aside the validity of the assertions of these people, I would ask the
>people who seem to advocate that there only be one choice: Microsoft Windows,
>if they really think that such an environment would be healthy.
>Don't you think that at some point, innovation would be stifled?
>Wouldn't a true Microsoft monopoly be bad, in the long run, even for Windows
>users?

Definitely. Given that M$ are the only ones who truely know how their
operating systems work (unless you fork out a lot of money AND actually get
their approval to see the source code), they have a distinct advantage when
pushing their own software. In most other industries, a situation like this
would be illegal - well, in Australia, anyway.

Quote:>Don't you think that some very bright people would be lost to other fields?

Yep. I'm already planning a lawn mowing career, in case things like NT
should take over world. My experience with it over the last couple of
months leads me to be less than impressed. It is tied so tightly with the
Windows interface that it effectively useless, and the notion that it is
"easy to administrate" is laughable.

I am suspicious about the ease of recovery should the machine ever trash
itself - although I can't really comment on this at this point, since I
haven't investigated the situation fully.

But trying to run a system with 600+ users on it via a GUI would be an
absolute joke.

Quote:>Would there be any fun left in a Windows-only world?

Hell no. Can't even remotely log into the things properly without getting
things like WinCenter Pro - and using this over a 28.8k link is almost
impossible (yes, I've tried it).

Quote:>Shouldn't everyone, including Windows advocates, be advocating more
>competition in operating systems and application software, not less?

Always. The only way any industry can continue to provide quality products
is to have a vast range of diverse products that can compete with one
another.

Paul.

--

"The growing use of e-mail, not to mention Web-page publishing, threatens to
reverse the trend towards illiteracy among the supposedly educated without at
the same time improving their spelling". -- Michael Swaine, Dr. Dobb's Journal

by **Joe Ragos** » Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> I'm not sure if windows users feel that way. I for one would not like to
> see a company dominated product. On the other hand, if you read alot of
> these posts on this newsgroup, you will see that Mac fanatics feel just
> the opposite.

Huh?

I see a lot of posts from Windows users suggesting that they'd be happy if
Apple and the Macintosh went away.

I very rarely see any posts from Mac users suggesting that they would like
Apple to have 100% share. In fact, just the opposite. We've seen what
Microsoft's monopoly has done to computing and would rather not have that
happen again.

I'd settle for 65% market share. ;-)

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm

by **George Grave** » Fri, 28 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> There has been a lot of talk on Usenet for many years about the impending
> demise of the Macintosh, OS/2, or anything else that competes with Microsoft.

> Lately, it seems only to be intensifying, as various "defectors" join
> the Microsoft FUD team.

> Putting aside the validity of the assertions of these people, I would ask the
> people who seem to advocate that there only be one choice: Microsoft Windows,
> if they really think that such an environment would be healthy.

> Don't you think that at some point, innovation would be stifled?

> Wouldn't a true Microsoft monopoly be bad, in the long run, even for Windows
> users?

> Don't you think that some very bright people would be lost to other fields?

> Would there be any fun left in a Windows-only world?

> Shouldn't everyone, including Windows advocates, be advocating more
> competition in operating systems and application software, not less?

> _____________________________________________________________________
> Brian Knotts http://www.europa.com/~bknotts

As long as there are people like me around, people who absolutely
refuse to use an Intel PC and a Microsoft 'operating system', I don't
think there will be any danger of MS being the only game in town.

George Graves

by **Grossenbacher Rog** » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>As long as there are people like me around, people who absolutely
>refuse to use an Intel PC and a Microsoft 'operating system', I don't
>think there will be any danger of MS being the only game in town.

All nice and good, but who cares ??? Markets are not something related to
sentiments. It's a plain question of momentum. The most advertised and pushed
wins. Usually not to a 100%, but that's just a detail. There is always some
place for niche products.

Example: I can't stand jap. cars. Why? Have no idea. So I buy US cars. Does
this change anything to the fact that the streets here are populated by about
80% of these Asian cars???

--
Roger Grossenbacher, M.D. (University of Montreal, Canada)

by **THE GRE** » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00

I

/>
/>
/> >As long as there are people like me around, people who absolutely
/> >refuse to use an Intel PC and a Microsoft 'operating system', I don't
/> >think there will be any danger of MS being the only game in town.
/>
/> All nice and good, but who cares ??? Markets are not something related to
/> sentiments. It's a plain question of momentum. The most advertised and pushed
/> wins. Usually not to a 100%, but that's just a detail. There is always some
/> place for niche products.
/>
/> Example: I can't stand jap. cars. Why? Have no idea. So I buy US cars. Does
/> this change anything to the fact that the streets here are populated by about
/> 80% of these Asian cars???
/>
/> --
/> Roger Grossenbacher, M.D. (University of Montreal, Canada)

Sorry to burst your bubble but the market may decide one thing and the
hackers will decide something else. Due to the inherent problems with
active X and MS macros, I believe that the move to MS homagomy will make
the computer systems of the world insecure.
It is also important to remember that MS products are shit for large to
very large data bases. This means that in 2-3 years of filling a Dbase on
an NT machine will tax the NT to the limit. And Unix machines will be
called in.

In the end UNIX rules and everything else is for playing games

by **ekoo..** » Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> In the end UNIX rules and everything else is for playing games

by **David Fie** » Sun, 30 Mar 1997 04:00:00

>There has been a lot of talk on Usenet for many years about the impending
>demise of the Macintosh, OS/2, or anything else that competes with Microsoft.
>Lately, it seems only to be intensifying, as various "defectors" join
>the Microsoft FUD team.
>Putting aside the validity of the assertions of these people, I would ask the
>people who seem to advocate that there only be one choice: Microsoft Windows,
>if they really think that such an environment would be healthy.
>Don't you think that at some point, innovation would be stifled?
>Wouldn't a true Microsoft monopoly be bad, in the long run, even for Windows
>users?
>Don't you think that some very bright people would be lost to other fields?
>Would there be any fun left in a Windows-only world?
>Shouldn't everyone, including Windows advocates, be advocating more
>competition in operating systems and application software, not less?

I'd *love* to see more competition.

Unfortunately, there isn't any.

Was MS responsible for Apple not licensing its OS?

Was MS responsible for Apple not allowing clones until it was too
late?

Was MS responsible for Apple making all the wrong computers, compared
to what the market wanted (and I mean the market of Mac buyers)?

Was MS responsible for IBM's terrible support for OS/2?

Was MS responsible for Lotus and WordPerfect's tardiness in bringing
out Windows versions (and then producing some real clunkers)?

Was MS responsible for Novell's neglect of WordPerfect?

In order for there to be competition, more than one player has to
*compete.*

When competition means "supporting players who seemingly can't make a
right decision," then what sort of competition is that?

You also forget the fact that (in the US, at least) there are few new
buyers. The competition for MS and every other computer and software
manufacturer is the vast installed base. To get those people to update
their computers and software, companies have to innovate and advance,
regardless of what other manufacturers are doing.

Even if every other software manufacturer went out of business
tomorrow, MS would have to keep going and still charge the same
prices.

I don't want one choice, but neither do I want companies around who
need some kind of corporate or customer welfare.

David.

by **Steven C. Den Best** » Sun, 30 Mar 1997 04:00:00

> I see a lot of posts from Windows users suggesting that they'd be happy if
> Apple and the Macintosh went away.

> I very rarely see any posts from Mac users suggesting that they would like
> Apple to have 100% share. In fact, just the opposite. We've seen what
> Microsoft's monopoly has done to computing and would rather not have that
> happen again.

> I'd settle for 65% market share. ;-)

I used to work with a guy who thought the Macintosh was the best
solution for every problem, and would always fight to get it used even
when it didn't make sense.

And I think that these days the reason Apple users aren't thinking about
100% market share is that they're too worried about 0% market share.

by **The Ed** » Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:00:00

> I'd *love* to see more competition.

> Unfortunately, there isn't any.

> Was MS responsible for Apple not licensing its OS?

Nopes....

Quote:> Was MS responsible for Apple not allowing clones until it was too
> late?

"Too late" is objective. I know i won't be the only person
snatching up a powermac (or clone) if Rhapsody has the
NeXTStep look and feel with a unix shell AND backwards compatability.

Quote:> Was MS responsible for Apple making all the wrong computers, compared
> to what the market wanted (and I mean the market of Mac buyers)?

The Mac is still the preferred platform for graphics development
(ok, i'm exclusing SGI here...) and DTP.

Quote:> Was MS responsible for IBM's terrible support for OS/2?

don't forget terrible marketing...but Discover Card Services
still basis a lot of their computing on OS/2, so it's
not dead quite yet.

Quote:> Was MS responsible for Lotus and WordPerfect's tardiness in bringing
> out Windows versions (and then producing some real clunkers)?

yes. when a company has the inside track on the API due to
being the writers of it, that can allow for an early entry
into the field.

Quote:> Was MS responsible for Novell's neglect of WordPerfect?

nopes...but Corel Office for Java has promise.

Quote:> In order for there to be competition, more than one player has to
> *compete.*

Seems to me that there is more then one player in this game (no
mention of my desktop platform of choice...linux).

Quote:> When competition means "supporting players who seemingly can't make a
> right decision," then what sort of competition is that?

Ahh, but the inside track makes a player harder to beat, encouraging
moves that might fail in an attempt to make up ground.

Quote:> You also forget the fact that (in the US, at least) there are few new
> buyers. The competition for MS and every other computer and software
> manufacturer is the vast installed base. To get those people to update
> their computers and software, companies have to innovate and advance,
> regardless of what other manufacturers are doing.

Innovate? like Access? where there is 0 backwards compatibility...
you can look at a file....but can't change it without converting
it, and can't save as a previous file format....that's innovative.
like bloating up IE so you can view RTF documents by embedding
wordpad within it? i guess innovation is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:> I don't want one choice, but neither do I want companies around who
> need some kind of corporate or customer welfare.

harsh judgement of some good products.

Cliff

by **Karl Thom** » Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:00:00

>yes. when a company has the inside track on the API due to
>being the writers of it, that can allow for an early entry
>into the field.

Then why were so many Mac companies out with Windows versions before
WordPerfect and Lotus?

Quote:>Ahh, but the inside track makes a player harder to beat, encouraging
>moves that might fail in an attempt to make up ground.

Then why couldn't WordPerfect and Lotus compete against MS in the Mac
market?

Quote:>Innovate? like Access? where there is 0 backwards compatibility...
>you can look at a file....but can't change it without converting
>it, and can't save as a previous file format....that's innovative.
>like bloating up IE so you can view RTF documents by embedding
>wordpad within it?

IE uses OLE to allow it embed any application that supports OLE.

by **The Ed** » Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:00:00

>>yes. when a company has the inside track on the API due to
>>being the writers of it, that can allow for an early entry
>>into the field.

> Then why were so many Mac companies out with Windows versions before
> WordPerfect and Lotus?

Umm.....find me a Word proccessor or spreadsheet app that came out
for 95 before Word and Excel?

Quote:>>Ahh, but the inside track makes a player harder to beat, encouraging
>>moves that might fail in an attempt to make up ground.

> Then why couldn't WordPerfect and Lotus compete against MS in the Mac
> market?

Because for spreadsheet and word processor markets, Windows machines
are the main focus. Period. for graphics and DTP, companies
produce mac software first. they are targeting the market they
want. nothing wrong with that.

Quote:>>Innovate? like Access? where there is 0 backwards compatibility...
>>you can look at a file....but can't change it without converting
>>it, and can't save as a previous file format....that's innovative.
>>like bloating up IE so you can view RTF documents by embedding
>>wordpad within it?

> IE uses OLE to allow it embed any application that supports OLE.

This is an unwanted feature. I personally don't want one application
doing everything for me (outlook as a file manager???).
I'd prefer innovations to the application's intended purpose....
it's a WEB BROWSER...not a text editor. Microsoft's recent idea
of innovation is to have their web browser become the end-all
operating system, which is a bit extreme, considering that they should
be working on things which actually benefit the enduser (backwards
and forewards compatibility issues really are annoying).

by **Karl Thom** » Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:00:00

>>>yes. when a company has the inside track on the API due to
>>>being the writers of it, that can allow for an early entry
>>>into the field.

>> Then why were so many Mac companies out with Windows versions before
>> WordPerfect and Lotus?

>Umm.....find me a Word proccessor or spreadsheet app that came out
>for 95 before Word and Excel?

WordPerfect has been in such disarray they can barely come out with anything.

Quote:
>>>Ahh, but the inside track makes a player harder to beat, encouraging
>>>moves that might fail in an attempt to make up ground.

>> Then why couldn't WordPerfect and Lotus compete against MS in the Mac
>> market?
>Because for spreadsheet and word processor markets, Windows machines
>are the main focus. Period.

Both WordPerfect and Lotus tried to compete in the Mac market before Win 3.0
ever came out.

Quote:
>> IE uses OLE to allow it embed any application that supports OLE.
>This is an unwanted feature. I personally don't want one application
>doing everything for me (outlook as a file manager???).

It's not one application doing everything. It's combining multiple apps
using OLE. It really is convenient to just be able to put a link to a Word
file on a web page and have Word automatically come up, especially on an
Intranet.

Very Computer

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...

Something to think about...