Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- From: "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:46:57 -0400
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e1tkdb013ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pete Mitchell wrote:
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e1t8420acn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you have any market survey results which support your claim that "99%
of
them didn't know it even existed"? It was a well known product by the
time
NT4 was out, however most people didn't buy it.
Come on - are you really trying to tell me that the average man in the
street knew about a business operating system, it's strengths and
weaknesses, and then made an informed decision to go in another
direction?
At the time the "average man in the street" didn't own a computer, had no
idea why one would want a computer, and couldn't tell you what an
operating
system _was_, let alone identify one. But this has no bearing on
technical
matters. You seem determined to sidetrack a technical discussion into a
marketing one.
Where would they get such knowledge? It wasn't advertised on TV / Radio
or
even in the newspapers. The average PC vendor didn't have a clue about a
serious business OS that required actual networking knowledge to
interface
with the real world either.
The "average PC vendor" when Windows 95 shipped was a Dell clone, which
certainly knew the difference; a Computerland clone, which specifically
targetted the business market; a white box assembler, which was generally
run by nerds who certainly knew the difference; or an authorized dealer
for
one of the major brands, which, unless that brand was Apple, certainly
knew
the difference.
That was before the days of Circuit City and Best Buy and CompUSA.
They did. NT sales tanked. Windows 9x was an alternative strategy
intended
to move the market where they wanted it to go. It did.
When? They introduced NT in the form of 3.1, but it was always a
business product targeted at business markets - the rest of the world
still had Windows 3.x and WFW. Moving to later versions, Win95 came out
BEFORE WinNT4, so I'm not sure I follow your logic.
It's not "my logic". It is Microsoft's logic and it was widely
discussed
in
the press at the time.
It's all news to me - and I'm still not sure what period you're talking
about, although it must be pre-windows 95 since it came out before NT
workstation 4.0, and I certainly didn't see Microsoft trying to withdraw
Win95 in favour of ANY flavour of NT (in fact I can't recall them ever
trying to pull any significant OS before it had run it's course.
Lemme guess, you were a kid at the time. The whole POINT of Windows 95
was
to provide developers an incentive to develop for Win32 instead of DOS and
Windows 3.x while not breaking any significant percentage of existing
applications. No, they didn't withdraw 95. They _hoped_ that it would
build up enough market momentum to provide that incentive. That's what
the
whole Windows 9x product line was about.
He sounds like he was anything but a kid at the time, and your asseting such
sounds like a weak attempt to discredit him. I was into computers at the
time--had a dual boot win 98/ NT4 system and I've built every PC I've owned
since, and I'm on my tenth. I recommended NT4 to my dad when he first
thought about purchasing a computer. He'd never heard of it, so he went to
the local computer store and asked about it, and they said they couldn't
recommend it as they couldn't support it. So, to me, Pete Mitchell's side
of the story reflects reality, and you seem to be set on denying it for a
bunch of unsubstantiated reasons.
--
www.mattclara.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- From: Paul Furman
- Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Prev by Date: distance scale
- Next by Date: Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Previous by thread: distance scale
- Next by thread: Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
