From: Alan Baker on 23 Oct 2009 15:20 In article <cfbabdf0-4b5a-4084-9226-c98c68828da8(a)m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > 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. "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 23 Oct 2009 15:21 In article <hbsnmn$scf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Hadron <hadronquark(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Such as... > > > 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 23 Oct 2009 15:21 In article <fvGdnSrazeLOZHzXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d(a)posted.palinacquisition>, "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Free Lunch" <lunch(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote > >>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. > > This statement is contrary to the facts: there were only 5 (can't remember > accurately, but that's +-2) internal APIs used, and they were innocuous > shortcuts for file open/close/access. They had virtually no performance > affect, and were made public after they became an issue. > > As for timing, outside ISV's had access as early as the internal people. > Most ISV's that had problems struggled over the difference between > Windows APIs and the OS/2 APIs that they had been using. The graphics > and user models were quite different and often affected program structure. Cites for this? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: hancock4 on 23 Oct 2009 15:44 On Oct 23, 12:49 pm, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Does it support DOS applications? > > Hell, Windows doesn't, anymore. Umm, I run my old DOS stuff all the time under Windows. They call it "command mode" now, but it works fine.
From: hancock4 on 23 Oct 2009 15:50
On Oct 23, 12:57 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > 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. I'm not at all sure I'd call that a "rip off". That is a fact of business life. A great many people become wealthy by merely acting as the middleman, connecting a seller and buyer. For sake of argument, say I need goat's milk. I go to my grocer who doesn't carry it, but he says he'll get it. He makes phone calls and gets it. He collects a profit for his work. I benefit by not having to call around myself to wholesalers or farms, heck I wouldn't know what farms to call. IBM didn't know who made PC software, so they asked Gates. Gates did know and exploited "leveraged" his knowledge. |