RE: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm

Doug,

Good to hear from you again, but...  See inline (>>)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 8:35 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: RE my XP Windows got broke in a Hailstorm


JT,

>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.

I first learned it because I had a neighbor who got it bundled with a
machine,
and was having a hard time learning how to use their new computer.  They
kept
calling me and asking how to do this or that.  I'd say, "Well, in Ami Pro
[or
1-2-3-] you'd just do this..."  I had to learn how to use theirs just so I
could
help them.  I don't remember specifics now, but I recall I definately found
it
much harder to use and less feature rich than Lotus / Ami Pro (I'm speaking
of
Windows versions here.)

I had a copy of Office at the time (which came bundled with a machine), but
had
previously uninstalled it after a little bit of playing because I didn't
like it
near as well as the copies of Lotus / Ami Pro which I had.  I put it back on
to
learn it because I could see the handwriting on the wall -- since everyone
was
getting it "free", it would soon become the new de facto standard and I
needed
to know how to answer questions when people asked me how to do something.

I will admit though that I thought even Access 1.0 was pretty good for its
day.


>> Never tried Ami Pro or much of any of the DOS versions.  See following
comments...



>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.

And ironically, I did use PC's quite a bit prior to Win 3.0; in fact, I used
VisiCalc prior to 1-2-3 for DOS came on the scene.  But you are comparing
Word
for Windows to 1-2-3 for DOS.  You should have compared Word for Windows to
the
Win version of Ami Pro, or Excel/Win to 1-2-3/Win.

IMHO, those who argue that MS has the superior product and don't see why
they
shouldn't have the market share, were not users of the early releases.
Compare
the early releases of IE and Netscape.  Which was better (ignoring price)?
I
think the same can be said of Office.


>> I used the earlier releases, but I don't argue they had, or have, a
"superior product"


If you never started using IE or Office until it was a decent product, then
it
is harder to see that MS got the market share by illegal tactics rather than
by
having a better product.  Now the products are arguably better because of
the
vast amount of resources they've been able to pour into them.  So just by
"leveling the playing field" again, they can hold their market share for a
long
time.


>> I can't intelligently discuss the technical aspects of whether their
tactics were illegal or not.  I've learned a lot catching up on the recent
posts.  But I think there'd be very few takers on the argument that MS
tactics were, and are, very borderline ethically speaking.


>  I think Win 3.0 attracted a large base of new users,

If you had tried Windows prior to 3.0, you'd know why it had few users.  It
was
awful.  Until 3.0, I found Windows completely unusable and used
multi-taskers
like Deskview instead.

>And IIRC, IBM
>insisted OS/2 had to be able to run on an AT, which was a huge blunder, in
>retrospect.

Well, I wouldn't call it a blunder.  It was a technical requirement.  They
wanted a real operating system, one that stayed in control as opposed to
"cooperative multitasking" (an oxymoron for sure).  This required putting
the
chip in protected mode.  I don't even think OS/2 would run on an AT, as
those
were 80286 based, and IIRC protected mode did not exist until the 80386.


>> I agree it was a technical requirement, but IMHO a marketing blunder.
That's in retrospect, BTW...  I ran OS/2 first on an 80386.  It worked like
a charm, but by that time Windows was already entrenched on JP's (and my)
machines.



Do you remember that Win 3.0 had three different modes you could start it
in?
There was "standard", something else ("real" mode perhaps?), and "386
enhanced".
All but 386 enhanced were a joke, as far as I was concerned.


>> Vaguely...  But even 386 enhanced mode was a joke.  I succeeded in
running a vendor's OS/2 based multi-tasking POS system in the Win "386
enhanced mode".  (The vendor told me it couldn't be done...;-)  Gave that up
real quick, though, because the "386 enhanced" mode just barely
multi-tasked...



>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.

And not so coincidentally, that swing happened at the exact same time that
all
major PC manufacturers were bundling in a copy of Office with every sale.
Gee,
I wonder why the major swing in market share?  As I said before, if Office
had
been an independent company all along and actually had to *sell* the product
in
the early releases, the market share would not have shifted so fast -- if
ever.
But then MS had the foresight to see that, so took steps to ensure it would
take
over the market share.  And it worked.  Just like IE vs Netscape.

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."


>> I agree on all points.



I think it is too late for the browser and office suite wars -- the battles
are
largely over.  But as Chris pointed out, trying to level the field now at
least
can allow for a different future.


>> I agree completely.  But I still firmly believe that the iNation is the
absolute best way to level the playing field.

>> I'm afraid I'm going to have to bail on this thread...  The problem with
good quality back-and-forth is that it can go on forever.  Most discussions
just end with "we'll have to agree to disagree" and end with more heat being
shed, than light.  But the good ones can go on because their perpetually
insightful.

>> BTW, I want to thank you publically for telling me about the M-L forums.
The insights, like these on this thread, have been been...  well...
enlightening to say the least.  OTOH, if I hadn't found out about M-L, my
life would probably be a lot simpler now, so....;-)


Thanks again, Doug...  Can't thank you enough for all the wisdoms you've
shared...

j


+---
| 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
+---