Re: Borland vs Microsoft

[Aiviet Nguyen <aiviet@cat.syr.edu>]

Hi folks,
  IT is not a matter of novelty. It is a matter of business. I don't see
much fantasy in comparing the beauty of Delphi with the Visual Basic.
Look at job ads in the New York Times and decide waht to learn. I guess
VB is more practical. I don't know about Web application of Delphi.
  
  Borland is a walking dead man beside Microsoft.

On Wed, 21 May 1997, Nguyen Tien Zung wrote:

> Hi ca'c ba'c, xin no'i leo mo^.t chu't:
> 
> >Generally people don't like something too dominant. However, it is not
> >neccesary true to say that monopoly is bad. 
> >Remmember that it is Microsoft
> >who provide us (high end consumers) with user-friendly software, such as
> >Windows 95 and office 97 enabling us to enhance our productivity and
> >value added? 

   The story of Windows 95 was that Microsoft and IBM were developing the
OS/2 when they broke up. OS/2 is said more powerful but Windows95 is more
successful on the market, just because it took care of the DOS and 16 bit 
applications. I think that was a great idea from Bill Gates. He did not 
care much about how and what. It was the why, that really mattered.
   

> 
> Don't be fooled. Xerox has the first GUI as far as I know, then Apple, then
> comes
> X-Window (of MIT?).

  I think X-windows came before Mac Windows.( End even Xerox GUI). 

> Microsoft only copied their idea, and their product was not good at all
> (VERY VERY
> BAD from the point of view of stability and security). DOS was not
> user-friendly at all, 
  
   The success of DOS was due to its simplicity. The simplicity was 
user-friendly ( easy to learn). The first Microsoft copy was Windows 3.x.
I think it was a good copy.
  
> at the time Mac and X-Window were already there and friendly.

  X-windows are industrial standards but are never user-friendly. How can 
a user learn program with MOtif?

> but they could not go far because of VERY UNFAIR commercial practices
> of
> Microsoft. Didn't you ask yourself why Microsoft dropped their win3.1 look
> and feel and
> chose what ressembles very much to that of a macintosh???

  Nothing UNFAIR in commercial practices when you can win.
No doubt that Mc Windows were very good but they did not work for Intel 
architecture. That was the worst of Apple.

> Microsoft killed and is killing many small or not so small companies which
> produced better products than its.

   I don't agree only with the word better without additional adverbs.
They will continue to do that. Now they have a harder stuff: Oracle and DBMS.
If they could kill Oracle ( I think it is hardly a case), their monopoly
would be over by their own product, the OLE.

   Anyway, the battle for the OS and browsers is almost over. NT and Unix
will dominate.

   Now the Object technology and DBMS are the battle fields. I found these
interesting and the ultimate goal is to win not to demonstrate the 
academic interest.

> Cheers, Zung

Cheers
Aiviet