Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- From: "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:56:06 -0400
Matt Clara wrote:
"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.
Sounds like you're another one who was a kid at the time then. I had
been building computers (and getting paid to do it) for ten years when
95 shipped, and been programming for 20. Further, in 1995 I was
developing code for Windows in what time I had left from running a 100
user Unix shop, so I think I'm in a bit different position from somebody
who "had a dual boot 98/NT4 system".
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.
The local store _knew_ about it or they wouldn't know that they couldn't
support it. It wasn't their ignorance of the existence of the product
that kept them from selling it, it was that there wasn't enough demand
for it for the to spend the money to get someone trained up on it.
Look, I have no idea why it's so important to you to believe that NT's
abject failure in the desktop market was the result of ignorance on the
part of computer resellers rather than its lack of suitability for that
purpose, nor do I have any idea why it's so important for you to believe
that Microsoft would have gone to the effort of developing Windows 9x
and selling it for far less than the price of NT if they did not have
some reason for doing so other than corporate stupidity, but since it
seems that you're determined to believe this, you're welcome to do so.
But at the time they said they had a plan, they said what it was, they
did what they said, and now they're where they said they were going to
be. So it seems to me that it's you and Pete Mitchell who are mistaken.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
.
- References:
- Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- From: Matt Clara
- Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Prev by Date: Re: Is this true, about Adobe's PS3?
- Next by Date: Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Previous by thread: Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Next by thread: Re: The whole Apple can Run Windows thing...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
