RE: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm

Doug,

Been following this thread off and on, and caught your comment "I'll admit I
switched to MS Office several releases ago, but I think the only reason they
got the market penetration they did was by the early bundling.  It certainly
wasn't because the early releases of Word were that good (IMHO).  To me it
is just about like the IE vs Netscape thing -- corner the market by nearly
giving it away."

I agree for the most part.  My reason for starting with Office was primarily
because it was either bundled, or dirt cheap, on each PC I bought.  But the
bigger reason was that I never really used PC's much, prior to Windows 3.0
and VB 1.0, so I see one other reason explaining how MS was able to corner
the market.

Because I had so little experience, I found Windows Office to be much, much
easier to learn than DOS Lotus.  I think Win 3.0 attracted a large base of
new users, so I daresay my experience is not unique.  About this time (I
don't recall the years) MicroSoft and IBM made a huge announcement:  there
would be no new versions of Windows and version x.x (I don't recall) would
be the last.  OS/2 was the platform of the future.

I was going through the junk room a few years ago, and found an article in
InfoWeek, or one of them, with the headlines of that historic day...  Seemed
pretty funny in retrospect.  But there was Bill Gates and James Cannovino
(IIRC) stating for a fact that OS/2 was the platform of the future.
Ashton-Tate, Harvard Graphics, WordPerfect and Lotus sure bought into that
one, as well as IBM, because they put almost all their development resources
into OS/2 versions of their products.  MS, by hook or by crook, or more than
likely by pure dumb luck, developed OS/2 and Windows versions of their
products.  I tried Lotus Win 1.0 but dropped it real quick.  I already knew
a little about Office, and Lotus 1.0 didn't had bugs.  According to legend,
MS used to have the policy that "DOS ain't done, 'till Lotus won't run".
They didn't need that policy after Windows came out, because from then on MS
products were perpetually one release ahead of the competition.

History shows the results quite clearly, and from that time I began hating
Bill Gates.  And over time I became real cynical about people who proclaim
they see the future of the industry.

Obviously there were a lot of factors in the demise of OS/2 and all of
MicroSoft's biggest competitors.  Memory prices at the time.  And IIRC, IBM
insisted OS/2 had to be able to run on an AT, which was a huge blunder, in
retrospect.  But I don't see it as any coincidence that Lotus DOS held 70 -
80% market share, and then almost overnight, Win Excel flipped those
percentages in their favor.  That was a massive swing, Lotus had been the
industry standard and then Excel became it.

Obviously, the breakup of the OS/2 team was perfectly legal, but their was a
moral contract with the industry that was broken.  Again, history shows the
results.  I think it is a testament to Lotus that they've faired so much
better than the other companies I mentioned above.


I was going to go into a long explanation of why I pity Bill Gates, now.
But it would take too long, and I'm generally not in favor of personal
attacks, even if they are intended to make a point.  I'll just cut to the
chase and say that IMHO, people should consider the money Bill Gates has
made, and consider the $67M or so that Mr. Gerstner makes in the proper
perspective.  It's chump change, in this business.  I've written before that
nobody wanted the job, at the time Mr. Gerstner took it, because it was
considered a career-ender.  Mr. Gerstner turned it down once, himself.  But
he took it at the request of a friend of his on the BOD, and since he held
the chips, he was able to bargain his way into the position of both CEO and
Chairman of the Board.  That was huge, at the time.  I'm not saying that Mr.
Gerstner is the only person on the planet that could have "saved" IBM, but I
will say, again, that many people at that time thought IBM wasn't going to
survive.

I'll add that I've now stopped hating Bill Gates, especially since I've seen
the (IMHO) lunacy of the counter-reaction that has brought Linux to
prominence.  They claim the high moral ground, but they frequently state as
their goal: "world domination".  That goal perplexes me, because if Linux is
so far and above every other OS, why would the world need to be "dominated"
by the Linux fanatics?  If it was that good, wouldn't it just rise to the
top of it's own merit?  Well... some would say Linux tactics are necessary
to fight the "unethical" tactics of MS, and maybe their right.  But I don't
see how you can claim the high moral ground by adopting the tactics of your
enemy.


Anyhoo...  I think I'm going to drop out of this thread (do I hear
applause...;-).  But, in conclusion, I'm not fool enough to say that the
best product, technically, will win out in the market (sure agree with Chris
there...!).  But I don't believe it's really been tested whether or not a
superior product, with "fanatical" supporters, can best the competition,
while trying to stick to using ethical methods.  That remains to be seen...
But that's why I'm moving over to another thread, for now.


Good to hear your thoughts, Doug, as well as everyone elses who've
contributed to this fascinating thread...!  As James Kilgore said, "well
said...".  I actually wrote this before I had a chance to catch up on most
of yesterday's posts.  I agree with most all of it, because where I see
points of disagreement, I see a lot of truth to both sides of the debate.

I would only add that IBM already has the tools to get into the desktop, in
fact several tools.  BeOS is a prime candidate for some heavy investing.
OS/2 lives.  And there was some interesting discussion, a while back on
IGNITe (...:-() about a $4000 Power-based PC-card add-in board that could
turn an "I-Series" Thinkpad into the real thing...;-)  Dr. Soltis said this
wasn't "a happenin' thang" because the card ran too hot. (...?)   Probably
just as well, because you don't want to play all your cards, before your
ready, so to speak...;-)  The desktop market sure does effect the rest of
us, but IBM would certainly want to have a very well-thought out plan to
take advantage of the all those opportunities.

IMHO.

jJt







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:16 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm


Chris,

>That does change with XP, right? The new licensing method that will require
>the OS to be relicensed for each configuration it is installed on.

And I think therein lies the real reason MS is saying "Software Assurance"
is
only available to those running Office XP, and setting an Oct 1 deadline.
They
have a much better chance of controlling piracy with XP, and need to figure
out
how to entice people to XP even if they are satisfied with the feature set
of
Office 97 or 2000.

In the early years of Office, when I thought they were still quite behind
Lotus
and AmiPro etc, they needed the market penetration of all but giving Office
away
to PC distributors, etc.  And turning a blind eye to home-user piracy helps
solidify market penetration.

I'll admit I switched to MS Office several releases ago, but I think the
only
reason they got the market penetration they did was by the early bundling.
It
certainly wasn't because the early releases of Word were that good (IMHO).
To
me it is just about like the IE vs Netscape thing -- corner the market by
nearly
giving it away.

Had Office been required to compete in the open marketplace from the
beginning,
I don't see how they would have had the sales to get the funds to enhance it
to
the point it would sell on its own merits.  Early versions of Office were
like
early versions of IE -- it's a good thing you didn't pay much for it,
because it
sure wasn't worth much.

But now Office is a respectable suit, just like IE is a decent browser.
Just
forcing MS to divest the applications group and/or Internet group now is
like
closing the barn door after the horses are out -- so what?  They've already
used
an unlevel playing field to all but destroy the competition.  Just trying to
make them compete on a level playing field from here on out does not rectify
the
injustice of how they got to where they are today.

Doug

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---