But your assumption is that no one else could have done it. I disagree. These other companies that you refer too, COULD have done it. We're talking about 16 years ago... and neither you nor I could have predicted how it would have panned out without MS. I believe that we would still be as far as we have come. However, in true debate style, these are MY opinions, and I am not forcing them on any one else. I respect your opinions, and hope people allow me to respect mine without shooting me down for going against the grain.
With regards to your first paragraph, they DID play dirty, particularly as far as Caldera and DR-DOS was concerned... it was proved in court that MS wrote code that stopped windows running over DR-DOS. Who's to say that Caldera DIDN'T have the vision? Their DR-DOS was way ahead of the equivalent from MS. It's all hypothetical... but what if MS hadn't come out with windows... or used unfair business practices to stifle competition... possibly more people WOULD have gone to IBM for OS2 or to Apple... and in turn these companies WOULD have then had the money to invest in marketing and R&D. People can say what they like about OS/2 and MacOS, but if MS hadn't of used corrupt business dealings... (they were not business deals... they were corruptions, they were blackmail... which has also been proved) then more people would have picked up those technologies, and developed them for the masses making them more stable, usable etc. Unfortunately, so many people will put down OS/2, MacOS, BeOS and Unix, because they haven't used them, or don't understand their place in IT. They all have their place. But they never stood a chance once MS struck those deals that said you can't ship any other OS's on a computer if you want to be an MS supplier. But it's all 'what-ifs'.... any company could have been where MS are today, if they had marketed early enough... or used corrupt business dealings :^) If anyone believes that MS 's business deals, where just business, and perfectly acceptable.... then they should get a lesson in business ethics. You won't gain any respect working like that, and that's (IMO) what's going to hurt MS in the long run. That and the ever increasing price of software, and the need to upgrade for each new software version!! We now see ourselves in a position where we have several very good alternatives to windows, unfortunately a few won't get the chance because of the existing business practices... but it's nice to see that some manufacturers ARE beginning to offer alternatives to a PC with Windows.... HP being one, Gateway here in Australia are another. But before people start to knock alternatives.... TRY them. Someone mentioned on CF-Talk about how the MacOS was so terribly unstable. That may have been their experience... my experience, and I am a heavy Mac/Linux/Windows user... MacOS is stable, a bit lacking in some areas, but considerably more stable than Windows. I ran a Powerbook side by side with my PC running NT for quite some time, and the Powerbook was far more stable. Now I run Linux on my Powerbook and PC, and I enjoyed a much higher level of stablility than both of the others. I still have an NT server here for running SQL Server and ColdFusion, and we still have Mac's for all design work. I have also had BeOS and MacOSX installed on these machines. BeOS was nice, VERY fast, but failed in the take up.. it's a shame too... It was the easiest OS I've ever installed... I believe that Be Inc have just sold the license to Palm! MacOSX is VERY promising... all of a sudden, Apple computers can suddenly run mySQL, Apache and all those popular *nix programs that are so very popular out there on the Internet. Unfortunately... it was really slow, this Powerbook used to chug along. There is an update due out on saturday that is supposed to really improve the speed though. I think MacOSX has a lot of potential. The stability and security of Unix, yet the ease of installation and use that Mac's are known for, and now, a whole new world of software! There are so many opinions out there... I'm happy to read them all, I get frustrated at the ones that come through bitching about this OS and that OS, without the author even trying them, or not giving them a fair go. Saying that they tried Linux two years ago, is like saying they played with Windows 1!! I looked at Linux two years ago... and I left it well alone. I looked at it again a few months ago, and was blown away at the improvements that had been made to setup etc. To those that are quick to put down Linux as an alternative, a cost effective alternative, then take another look at Mandrake 8. I am in a position where I have been able to try a lot of operating systems, I feel that my opinions have merit because I have that experience. After trying them all, I have my preferences and they are not MS. I have valid reasons for that, and don't feel that I warrant any flaming from people, because I choose not to use MS. I'm not an MS hater. I just enjoy my computing experiences. I use the tools that make my daily grind enjoyable, MS did not offer me that when compared to others. Ooops.... sorry about the loooong post.... I'll get off my high horse now!! Thanks for your reply Nick, it kinda feels good to ramble sometimes!!! :^) N On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:44, you wrote: > The other companies were run by Technical people, MS was being run by > business people who paid well(not just tech) and made deals to get > themselves ahead. You can call it playing dirty, I call it business. > > Sure at some point somebody else would have finally gotten it going. But at > the time there was no other company who was capable, they didn't have > people who could sell investors like MS could, they couldn't make deals > with Hardware manufactures like they could. > > I am not saying we wouldn't have moved along, but it would have been > slower. You have to understand what MS made. They made things easy, and > noticeable. They got a Rolling Stones song, they paid for commercials. They > really didn't have any competitors at the time. IBMs stock was way low and > OS2 sucked, they didn't have any money to market. Apples stock wasn't doing > nearly as well as MS, and by 1995 they were in no position to compete. Back > in the early 80s they were all at about the same spot. Apple stayed with MS > until the late 80s early 90s. At that point they split. > > MS was able to get businesses to buy their products because they were > easier to manage. Which meant you could pay less for the people. It also > meant some businesses could now finally afford to purchase it. > > Soon people started to put computers at home. MS saw this and developed a > product for the home user that was cheap and familiar. People bought it. MS > made a wizard which made it easy to connect to the Internet, people did. > Other companies didn't have the cash or the personal to do this. > > This may be because of MS playing dirty, but what it really comes down to > is company management. MS could the others couldn't. > > At some point you have to look past the technical aspects of this. Sure > other people were better but nobody knew about them because they didn't > make themselves known. They didn't make themselves known because they > didn't know how. > > At 11:47 AM 9/27/2001 +1000, you wrote: > >Then another company would have come along and done the same thing. > > > >You surely cannot all assume that if Microsoft didn't exist, then we > > wouldn't have moved anywhere?? Of course we would.... all the same > > software, more or less, would have been developed... it would have taken > > another company.. Caldera after there DR-DOS days possibly, to have taken > > other peoples innovations and wrap a window manager wround the back of > > it. > > > >You just don't know what could have happened, because any competitor to MS > >got annihalted before MS even really started. IBM and Caldera both had > > DOS tools out, the other attempt at a windows GUI that appeared around > > the days of Windows 1 too (that I can't remember the name of).... Mac OS > > was available, Unix was available, and soon came OS2... they were all > > there.... all potentials.. and if any one of them played dirty, forced it > > onto every PC, and then put the marketing bucks in, any one of them would > > be as well of as MS are now... yes even Unix!! > > > >To think that computers wouldn't have taken off as much as they have > > without MS is completely naive, IMHO. > > > >There were many alternatives, that in the same position as MS would have > > been just as good. And even more to think of..... if MS hadn't played > > dirty, but played fairly.... we may even have been in a completely BETTER > > position. Maybe competition would have forced companies to release solid, > > stable products. > > > >Personally... I'd probably still be doing the same thing that I am today, > >regardless of whether MS had been around or not. I was working with > >computers before MS existed... and I think we'd be in a pretty similar, > >maybe better, maybe not, but a very similar place without them. > > > >N > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
