Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:55:20 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "David Scheidt" <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: "Jonathon McKitrick" <jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, "Erick White" <erickw@taurus.oursc.k12.ar.us>, <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Judge: "Gates Was Main Culprit" Message-ID: <000401bf3074$e4c4de30$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991116140741.15532C-100000@shell-3.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > In fact, that VHS was able to overthrow Beta, the market > leader, simply > > because it was better is proof that market power can't lock us > into inferior > > technologies. > > No, it only proves that market power won't necessarily "lock us into > inferior technologies" not that it can't. There is a very important > difference. Actually, it proves much more than that. It proves that people are so desperate to find examples of lock in that they will just make them up without ever even bothering to look at the facts. Can you present a single clear-cut case of such lock in? I am convinced that the only way that the market can lock us into an inferior technology is if the inferior technology is only very slightly inferior, so much so that the cost of changing to the superior technology outweighs its slight superiority. I defy you to present a single historical example to the contrary. And note that even in this case, the 'superiority' of the technology evaporates if you consider the cost of abandoning to it as part of the value of the 'inferior' technology. This is why the US still does not use metric units. They are superior, but not sufficiently superior for ordinary people that it's worth the effort involved in switching. > > Right, this is progress. If you want the features of Kodak > Advantix, you > > Well, no it isn't. Why does a new improved version of an office suite > require an improved OS. It doesn't, exccept that the OS vendor has a > monopoly and can force users to upgrade. I don't consider being > forced to > upgrade progress. There is no fundimental reason that Office > 2000 couldn't > run on the first edition of windows 95, except MS wants to sell > you a newer > version. Why does a new camera require a new film? Surely Kodak could have designed a new camera that didn't need new film, right? Perhaps it couldn't have had some of the Advantix features, but it would still have been a damn good new camera, right? Do you realize what Microsoft had to do to make a Windows 3.1 version of IE? Do you relalize the effort expended to produce WIN32s? All of these things were done precisely so that people would _not_ have to upgrade. Microsoft would love it if everyone bought every new Microsoft product all the time. But they also know that upgrades have costs. So they try to maximize return and minimize cost. Why have services packs 1 through 6 for NT4.0 been free? They have kept that operating system up to date for years with no direct revenue. If Microsoft dropped support for a significant legacy niche market, they would leave an oppurtunity that any competitor could jump on. But the fact is, the legacy markets they have abandoned are generally small. Yes, this hurts the late adopters, but late adoption has advantages and disadvantages just like early adoption does. At some point, the cost of supporting legacy hardware and software outweighs the benefit of compatability. It is at that point that compatability is dropped. Why is the P3-500 in this desktop really just a fast '386? Why is there little software released today that runs on a 286? This is a complex task of market judgment. Alpha was apparently too early. Or too radical. Or too poorly marketed. People didn't like it, so they didn't buy it. (Puzzling though, you'd think that FX!32 would have bridged that legacy gap.) We'll see about Mer^H^H^HItanium (awful name). > > I still use Windows for my desktop machine and for the > machines my kids and > > I play games on. It still works better. It's not a big deal if > your desktop > > crashes. Servers are another story. > > It's a big deal if my desktop crashes. I don't have an hour a > week to spend > dealing with fiddly crap like that, sorry. I am currently stuck > using an NT > box as main desktop at work, because my FreeBSD box had a > hardware failure. > It sucks. I install an mp3 player and have to reboot. I change > my monitor > resolution, and have to reboot. And so on. So I got to waste an hour > today with that. There is no reason I should have to do anything > like this. I'm sorry you don't like it. If you don't feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, stop using it. That's a decision that you, and everyone else, can make at any time. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000401bf3074$e4c4de30$021d85d1>