May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: N8N on 23 Oct 2009 12:49 On Oct 23, 12:10 pm, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Oct 23, 8:03 am, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > That's what I don't understand. The difference between a Lumina and a > > Camry, while significant, is nowhere near as pronounced as the > > differences between Windows and *nix. In some cases, the superior > > alternative to Windows is *free* so long as you have a working > > computer, a high speed internet connection, and a CD-ROM burner. > > People, especially those upgrading to a new computer, do not have a > high speed connector nor a CD burner. Most people know someone who does, however. I think it's just the having to actively do something (and taking the risk that you have an unsupported card/whatever) that stops people. I am surprised that you can't walk into a store and buy a new home PC loaded with Linux, OpenOffice, GIMP, etc. - but they're not as common as you'd think. Every new version of Windows that comes out more bloated than the last I think "well, here comes the backlash, we're going to see more OS's on the shelf" but for whatever reason it doesn't happen. Heck, I'm running OpenOffice on my Windows PC. I didn't see the point in paying the $$ for MS Office. At least I'd think that dual boot systems would be available, but MS probably has something in their OEM license agreements about that. (I don't KNOW, I'm just speculating.) > As others mentioned, will Linux support commonly run applications? In most cases, yes, or there alternatives available - but not always (e.g. my AutoCAD example, hence I still have it.) > Does it support DOS applications? Hell, Windows doesn't, anymore. > As to cars, over the years certain very good makes of cars appeared on > the marketplace. But service and support was so hard to come by the > car didn't sell, regardless of its superiority. I'm trying to think of a car that one would consider "good" that left the market because of lack of support. The only ones I can think of are ones like FIAT, Peugeot, etc. and that's a pretty loose definition of "good." nate
From: Alan Baker on 23 Oct 2009 12:57 In article <2435ed97-9a91-48a2-ab28-39c3f4023f85(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Oct 23, 1:13�am, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > MS got the contract because there was no competition. They literally > > passed on the chance when it was first offered to them, because they > > weren't an OS company. > > I thought another OS company either wanted a high price or wasn't > interested when IBM came along, so IBM went back to M/S. Neither of which would consitute "sharp "vision" and shrewd sales and negotiation skills.", would it? In this case, it was MS who sent IBM to Digital Research in order to perhaps purchase CP/M, but Digital Research was concerned about the non-disclosure that they were asked to sign and so IBM returned to MS. Microsoft's "shrewd" people passed on contract entirely and it was only luck that had it come back to them. > > > > Then they told IBM that they had an OS, when in fact they didn't. Then > > they bought another man's copy of the only other OS that would have been > > appropriate and IBM made one of the biggest blunders in the history > > of... ...history. > > A great many small businesses, when asked if they have a product or > service, say "yes" when in fact they have nothing. The business then > rushes out to get the customer what was requested. The business is > obviously taking a big gamble, if it works the gamble usually pays off > handsomely and the small business grows quite a bit as a result. That may be, but in this case, what they rushed out to get was a rip-off of someone else's product. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Free Lunch on 23 Oct 2009 12:59 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote in misc.transport.road: >On Oct 22, 11:54�pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." ><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> Indeed. But Microsoft Office is usually the popular choice, given that a >> large userbase often shared word documents, excel spreadsheets, etc. > >Question: Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and >were almost the 'standard' in industry. What happened that motivated >companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and >Excel? Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and >be retrained. Two things: Microsoft Office, a group of products that worked the same way and worked well in Windows for the price of Word Perfect or Quattro or 1-2-3 alone. WP 5.1 was a $500 product 20 years ago. The products worked well because MSFT appears to have allowed their developers advance access to Windows 3(.1) and allowed them to use undocumented features of Windows. Since MSFT had finally gotten Windows to work in 3.1, the strong pressure to stay with high quality, but standalone DOS software like WP 5.1 or Lotus 1-2-3 disappeared and the advantage they had was much smaller in Windows.
From: Hadron on 23 Oct 2009 13:04 Free Lunch <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> writes: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote in > misc.transport.road: > >>On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >>> Indeed. But Microsoft Office is usually the popular choice, given that a >>> large userbase often shared word documents, excel spreadsheets, etc. >> >>Question: Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and >>were almost the 'standard' in industry. What happened that motivated >>companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and >>Excel? Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and >>be retrained. > > Two things: > > Microsoft Office, a group of products that worked the same way and > worked well in Windows for the price of Word Perfect or Quattro or 1-2-3 > alone. WP 5.1 was a $500 product 20 years ago. > > The products worked well because MSFT appears to have allowed their > developers advance access to Windows 3(.1) and allowed them to use > undocumented features of Windows. Bullshit. Other companies managed just fine. > Since MSFT had finally gotten Windows > to work in 3.1, the strong pressure to stay with high quality, but > standalone DOS software like WP 5.1 or Lotus 1-2-3 disappeared and the > advantage they had was much smaller in Windows.
From: chrisv on 23 Oct 2009 13:13
hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Oct 23, 11:31�am, chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >Question: �Word Perfect and Lotus used to have a large user base and >> >were almost the 'standard' in industry. �What happened that motivated >> >companies to spend the money to switch from those to MS-Word and >> >Excel? �Many people had to convert their doucments or spreadsheets and >> >be retrained. >> >> How about going to OEM's, who had no choice but to buy Microsoft's >> operating system, and pressuring them (or "incentifying" them) to >> recommend and bundle their office products? > >I don't believe any OEM offered M/S Office for free, it was an extra >cost option, if available at all as an inclusion. I did not mean to imply that it was without extra cost, only that Microsoft made them a deal "they couldn't refuse". >Bundling various products as a package instead of selling them a la >carte is a very common business procedure. Microsoft's domination of the OS market gave them "unfair" advantages in the office productivity market. The rules are different for monopolies, and rightly so. >> How did they kill Netscape so quickly? �Not only did they give IE away >> for free, but they placed its icon front and center on the desktop, >> and *disallowed* any alternative product being there. > >I'm not sure putting the icon front and center really makes things >different. Of course it does. The majority stay with what is pre-installed and convenient, if it works "ok". |