Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:18:09 -0500
From:      Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>
To:        FreeBSD Chat Mailing List <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?)
Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20011202215531.018f3d80@threespace.com>
In-Reply-To: <15369.3159.548082.862287@guru.mired.org>
References:  <008901c17a30$7d084f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15367.37543.15609.362257@guru.mired.org> <040701c179af$4bda25f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15367.43943.686638.723011@guru.mired.org> <003301c179ea$8925d270$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15368.2156.193643.17139@guru.mired.org> <005601c179f3$a4030640$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15368.5624.255357.964607@guru.mired.org> <008901c17a30$7d084f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:59 AM 12/1/2001, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > That's because once you get past "good enough," technology doesn't matter
> > (otherwise it wouldn't be good enough, would it?).
>
>That's a one-sentence summary of my "good enough is best" paper. MS is
>willing to keep trying until they reach "good enough", and has
>excellent marketing. Their technology is just barely better than "good
>enough" in almost every category. As such, there's usually better
>technology available from companies that don't have the marketing
>smarts that MS has.

This is one of the things that never ceases to amaze me about this 
list--how easily the people on here forget that YOU (WE) ARE NOT 
REPRESENTATIVE OF MASS-MARKET COMPUTER USERS.  If we were, we wouldn't be 
here now.

Other people don't spend time poring over technical specifications to see 
which one is best suited to their needs.  Most people want compatibility 
and easy access to software and support.  They want to be able to easily 
walk into a store and purchase software or buy it online.  They want to 
know that the nifty new MP3/video player that they saw at a friend's house 
will work on their system too.  They want to be able to buy hardware 
blindly without scouring the box for that obscure label on the bottom that 
says "Works on Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP and [insert your favorite OS here]."

Compatibility, backwards and forwards, is a major consideration for most 
users.  Crashes are an inconvenience at best, not a mission-critical 
disaster.  For most people, the crash means the you have to reboot and 
re-establish your dialup connection to finish reading your e-mail.  Your 
download was interrupted?  It sucks, but nobody has lost anything because 
of it.  For many of you, a crash on the wrong system could mean thousands 
of dollars in lost productivity, the loss of your job, or even a ruined 
career.  Trust all that to Windows?  Hell no.  But for casual web-browsing 
and playing MP3s, it's the bomb.

I don't envy Microsoft for having to maintain the legacy that it 
does.  Believe me, there's a reason that every version of Windows to date 
will still run the same DOS software that existed nearly 20 years ago.  And 
it ain't because anybody thinks that software had such high technical 
merit.  Once you've got customers on your team, you can't change the game 
on them mid-stream or you run the risk of losing them.  Even the 
FreeBSD/Linux developers realize this.  Hell, people on this list don't 
even want the kernel *interfaces* to change because they're busy doing 
things in the source code.  But they don't want the innovations to stop 
either.  Maintaining the balance between the two is hard, especially if 
you've got hundreds of millions of customers to whom you're beholden.

I've often said that technologically superior products are doomed to fail 
in the marketplace because they tend to rely on their superior technology 
as incentive for people to buy them.  I think OS/2 is a prime example of 
this.  While IBM was busy telling people how many wonderful technical 
features they had implemented, Microsoft was out getting hardware vendors 
and developers on their team.  The applications and the customers followed 
naturally.  Even IBM's own divisions wouldn't pre-load OS/2 on their PCs 
after Windows really picked up steam.

I do training on Windows computers.  And my students are always very 
interested when I tell them about the wonderful things UNIX can do, things 
that it has done for decades that Windows is only now starting to do.  And 
it never fails to impress them.  But when it's all over and they're ready 
to play a game or download a new streaming media player, those technical 
considerations all crumble to naught in the face of compatibility.

--Chip Morton


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?4.3.2.7.2.20011202215531.018f3d80>