[arachne] Re: DOS only or?
- From: "Eric S. Emerson" <wildrice5@xxxxxxxx>
- To: arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:25:00 -0700
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
Hi Greg M.,
You seem to have missed my
point entirely. Yes, all that you have written
has been purported to be among the reasons
for M$ success....and...I'm sure most people
on this list are aware of all those reasons and
others that have been given...but none of those
stories has anything to do with the point I am
trying to make...which is....If all the computer
users who have been said to prefer MAC's
were really buying MAC's then I think that Apple
would have a much larger market share. So.....
there must be a lot of computer users who
prefer Mac's that have bought and are using
PC's that run on M$ software. As Sam E. says...
Lawrence Tech. is a school run by engineers
who are using PC's running Windows ...but....
his son, graduating as an engineer from that
school says that "engineers prefer Mac's"....
so in mathematical/engineering terms....that equation
doesn't balance. Somewhere there is a false hypothesis.
Eric
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:05:47 +0930 "Greg Mayman" <gmone@xxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
>
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:25:47 -0700, Eric S. Emerson wrote:
>
> > Well, I know engineers who
> > prefer M$W!n software. I find it strange
> > when I hear people exclaim how this or
> > that group/category of people prefer Macs..
> > Then why aren't Macs the predominant
> > computer. And, why isn't Apple far out
> > grossing M$?
>
> It seems to me that it all goes back to the early days when Apple
> and
> IBM were trying to capture the mass market. Several manufacturers
> made
> copies of the Apple IIE, but were sued by Apple for infringement of
> copyright.
>
> However, when Texas Instruments wanted to make a copy of the IBM
> PC, IBM granted them the right to use the ROM code under licence.
> Other
> manufacturers followed suit and so the IBM-clone industry boomed.
>
> Later when Apple introduced the Macintosh, they had a computer that
> was far superior to the IBM clones. This is quite possibly due their
> use of the 68000 processor, compared with the 80xx and 80xxx in the
> IBM clones.
>
> The superiority of the Mac was illustrated by its use of a 64k ROM
> and
> 256k RAM, with a single 720k disk drive to run quite fancy software
> (for the day) under a GUI. Later the Mac, still in its tiny fan-less
> case, was using a 128k ROM, 1meg RAM and a hard disk, and running
> Microsoft Word 5.
>
> Early Windows, running on a 80xxx platform used considerably more
> RAM
> and HDD space to run Word 6 (which incidentally was the same as Word
> 5
> on the Mac but "we must have Windows users thinking they are getting
> an upgraded version, even if they aren't.")
>
> Had Apple not started with that law suit, or had the clone makers
> sought permission from Apple, the world would probably been using
> 68xxx based computers today, rather than the inferior 80xxx family.
>
> I have written assembly language software for the 68xxx and 65xxx
> computers, also for the 8080 and Z80 (the "home" version of the
> 8080)
> and I do know that the 68xxx programming is much simpler, cleaner,
> and
> faster to run.
>
> OTOH very few people write assembler code these days. I never did
> get
> into the higher level languages except for BASIC.
>
Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
Other related posts:
