Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: sigzero

“Microsoft Windows was not better than OS/2 from IBM”

Microsoft is far far better than IBM. IBM never imagined there would be a PC on everyones desk.

Microsoft made a product which was easy to use and they made it easy to buy. Linux has developed over the years, but is difficult to use for the average person. We keep hearing about new desktop versions but they aren’t ready and probably never will be. There is not adequate financial incentive for companies to develop that product.


40 posted on 08/17/2011 8:31:21 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: driftdiver; sigzero
Microsoft is far far better than IBM. IBM never imagined there would be a PC on everyones desk.

As I recall, IBM hired Bill Gates to provide an operating system for their personal computers, the PS/1 systems. Microsoft delivered DOS (Gates bought it from some guy, it was not developed at Microsoft). DOS worked on Intel processors. PC clones then appeared and used DOS too. Years later Microsoft released Windows 95, which was a windowing system that worked on top of DOS.

With the PS/2 system, IBM tried to dominate the market with their Micro Channel architecture. It flopped because none of the manufactures of PC clones were willing to license the Micro Channel architecture from IBM. As a consequence IBM became a niche player in the PC market.

IBM's OS/2 was a great operating system and far superior to Microsoft's DOS. But it was expensive, and people were not willing to pay the higher price. PC clones were cheap. Superior technology does not always win in the market place. DOS on PC clones was cheap and was good enough for the average user. Consequently Microsoft won in the market place.

46 posted on 08/17/2011 9:27:08 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: driftdiver
Linux has developed over the years, but is difficult to use for the average person. We keep hearing about new desktop versions but they aren’t ready and probably never will be. There is not adequate financial incentive for companies to develop that product.

See, I don't understand that. I've installed Ubuntu in hundred's of machines for people that knew nothing, or very close to nothing, at all about Linux. (that's just about all that I do nowadays) They are up and running in minutes. I've got machines out there that have been running since 2002 without ever needing to open a terminal or change a system file, or have any of the problems you hear so much about. What IS IT that is so different and confusing? You double click on an icon, and your application opens. I mean, Firefox's logo icon is a different color and design, but it still opens a browser which operates nearly exactly like IE. Ditto with Open Office. They update themselves with security updates and software and even new kernels. Printers are the only issues I've had to deal with. What? LOL

51 posted on 08/17/2011 9:47:16 AM PDT by papasmurf (War is hell, but not the worst hell. Having a PRES__ENT comes close!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson