NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10912

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 4.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10912 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3419
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!lowell
From: [e-mail] (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:06:44 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Warner) writes:
>>>
>>>>I think you should dabble a bit more in economics.  MS has had ZERO to
>>>>do with the down-pricing of computers.  They have had little to
>>>>do with OS's, also.  DOS was a hack, procured from another company
>>>>which in turn borrowed it from a third.  The most major change was
>>>>the 'UNIX-ification' of DOS, i.e., they borrowed heavily from another
>>>>OS.  NT will be the first truly MS-written OS.  Even that has
>>>>borrowed heavily from others (Mach from CMU, etc.).
>>>
>>>I do not care if DOS was a hack or not. The point is that it was
>>>_needed_ by people to operate their computers, and MS was the only
>>>company that provided it to them by the time they needed it.
>>Dov, you need to study your history more.  There were three operating
>>systems offered by IBM when the PC was introduced.  The $49 PC-DOS,
>>The $395 CP/M-86, and Something called P-System (I don't remember
>>the price).  And of course, Unix was offered for it as well.  The
>>point being that IBM had a vested interest in lo-balling DOS (they thought
>>that they had paid for it's development).  And DOS won on low cost alone,
>>CP/M-86 was arguably a better OS (no inherant 640K barrier).
>
>OK. I should have added the word _cheap_. Still makes no difference
>in the argument itself.
>
>>>How come that no other company produced an equivalent of WIN 3.0 before MS ?
>>>I do not say that WIN 3.0 is necessarily an outstanding technical
>>>achievement. What I say is that MS were the first to provide people
>>>with what they need to do their work.
>>>
>>Hmm, Digital research produced GEM some years before Windows 3.0, and
>>computers like the "Apricot" and Amiga came with it pre-installed.
>>However, Digital Research under Gary Kildall had one problem, advertizing/
>>marketing.  They simply couldn't, as shown by their abrupt abandonment of
>>their CP/M Customer base, market.
>
>Again, it does not make any difference in the argument itself. Still,
>only MS was capable of having the capabilities to provide _cheap_
>GUI to users, in spite of the high cost of marketing. No other company
>was as efficient.
>
>>>Why is it that people has taken for granted for years that only
>>>MS is capable of providing developers with APIs, and watched
>>>every word that come out from BG ? Only in 1991
>>>IBM challenged that assumption. Why did not they challenge it a lot
>>>earlier ?
>>>
>>Because, others have chalanged Microsoft, only to be litigated or
>>advertized into the grave.
>
>Again: Only MS was efficient enough to provide these services in spite
>of high costs for advertizing and legalmen.
>
>This only supports my previous observation, that the more efficient
>a company is, the more likely it is to be penalized by the FTC. Nice
>prize for efficiency.
>
>>--Lowell Morrison
>>--Uncle Wolf (Old and Gray).
>
>Dov
>
>


Dov, you repeatedly make the statement about only MS being capaible of
Offering MS-DOS and Windows.  This in the face of evidence about there
being alternate operating systems that were simply mis priced and
mis advertized.  You really do need to read you history and some
economics rather than making these rather stupid statements.

That a company is bad n advertizing has nothing to do with its
financial status.   That IBM made offerings at prices that favored
MS-DOS in the early years because they thought that they had
paid for it's development has nothing to do with how cheaply
an operating system should be priced..  Only IBM's early Bias, and
that has little or nothing to do with MS Pricing Policies.

Pre Windows offerings by Xerox on it's Star CP/M based system,
Gem and Unix Based Windows systems were offered and largely
failed because of propriatary hardwar (the xerox star) or
advertizing errors.  This again says nothing other than
MS has a very good advertizing department.  Who have put out
a line that you have obviously bought.  And swolled hook, line
and sinker.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf.