Re: Borland vs Microsoft

[Paul Pham <pham@xmission.com>]

On Wed, 21 May 1997, Aiviet Nguyen wrote:

> 
>    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.

how about luck :))).
IBM invent Bill gate and microsoft. DOS and MS window under the eye
of experts and academic is a joke. Things that Microsoft
incorporate to Win95 and NT exists in other environments (Mac, Unix etc)
for a while.
    
> 
> > 
> > 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). 

Xerox has the first GUI idea. However it has never gone out of
Xerox labs. Mac "stole" xerox idea and personnel.
 
> > 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.
> 
>   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.

IMO, Intel architecture is not a sigfinicant factor. The failure
of Apple (mac) is probably due maily to its close systems.