Peter da Silva wrote:
> Microsoft didn't get thir position by doing things other people were in a
> better position to do, but didn't, or anything like that. Microsoft was very
> lucky in being selected by IBM for the OS for their original PC and they have
> ruthlessly exploited their position.
Also, nearly 100% of the PCs sold in the 1980s came preloaded with DOS or
Windows or both for FREE. If you tried to buy a computer WITHOUT Windows
or even with some other OS preloaded, you would be met with a shrug and/or
refusal.
Part of the reason for the Macintosh early success was that MacWord and
MacPaint were bundled with all new systems, so people could work right
away. Windows was much the same. The biggest difference was the volume
of PCs sold versus the volume of Macs sold. PCs had it all over Macs
because there were so many clones; hence, the sheer numbers of Windows
machines exploded.
Then the OS maker began to publish all manners of business and home
productivity software. The rest is history.
> And you can't say that anyone else would have done the same. Apple was in a
> similar position with regard to the Macintosh and they deliberately went out
> of their wayto promote competition.
Apple didn't allow clones. Doesn't sound like "promoting competition" to
me. Sounds like Apple tried to corral the market. Prices that are double
that of PCs for similar hardware and software is testament to the legacy
of Apple's short-sighted vision for the Mac.
--
Scott Cokely |* The Internet interprets censorship as damage, *
Silicon Systems, Inc. |* and ROUTES AROUND IT. *
scott .
cokely @
tus .
ssi1 .
com |*************************************************
require "disclaimer.pl"; | The best things in life aren't things.
--------------------------+ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Follow-Ups:
|
|
