Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!agate!theos.com!riscan.riscan.com!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!west.news.istar.net!van-bc!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!news.ottawa.istar.net!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.fdt.net!news.biddeford.com!not-for-mail From: swanton@river.biddeford.com (george p swanton) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX) Date: 24 Apr 1996 19:34:17 -0400 Organization: Biddeford Internet Corp. Lines: 51 Message-ID: <4lmdpp$qg4@river.biddeford.com> References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <yfgbuktfn1w.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <4l89ov$g5i@river.biddeford.com> <31784FD9.28AA98F6@lambert.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: river.biddeford.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:22366 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:846 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3526 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3381 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18185 comp.os.linux.advocacy:47153 In article <31784FD9.28AA98F6@lambert.org>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: >george p swanton wrote: > >[ ... ] >] [...] Operating systems dont 'sell', applications do. >Stop there. Not to be obtuse, but if that's the case, why does >Microsoft advertise Windows 95 and Windows NT at all? Because they hyped the bleep out of NT and it more or less just lay there? NT is technically superior to WfWG/W3.1/W95 but people weren't willing to pay for 'just' technical superiority. >Why didn't OS/2, which could run Windows and DOS applications >(in a lot of ways, better than Windows 95) "fly off the shelves"? Actually, OS/2 is a better example for than against the initial assertaion; OS/2 can multitask circles around any of the Windows packages and was more stable (though one could argue NT is of comparable quality stability wise). "Windows runs Windows and DOS programs, I already own Windows, why should I buy OS2?" Which clearly they didn't. A better OS, but it didn't sell. >I believe the "applications sell OS's claim" to be more than a >bit naieve... at best, it's a gross oversimplification (one >which IBM and Microsoft and Novell and SCO and ... don't believe). You're right, it is a gross oversimplification, but not of the same magnitude as the belief 'build a better OS and they will come'. There are numerous factors which may weigh as or more strongly than either of the above. Perhaps the largest is backwards- compatibility, application software, particularly in-house developed systems, represents a substantial investment. Another is familiarity. Users want a shallow, short learning curve. Another, sadly, is marketing hype. A definite factor in the outcome of the OS/2 saga was IBM's weak marketing of the product. I still believe application availability outweighs OS level superiority in the mind of the average consumer but the matter certainly doesn't reduce to any one maxim. I should have expected an 'in kind' response to have drawn a re-rebuttal (not that that's a word, or spelled correctly mind you.... gps