Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but....

 [1/22] from: tbrownell:y:ahoo at: 23-Sep-2000 12:14


Below are some old OS market share stats (no doubt Unix flavours have grown). It's clear the Microsoft has the monopoly on OS's. An interesting point.. apparently DOS has a greater market share than Linux and Unix combined (although this may have changed as well) and yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform? Market share of OS's as of July 1999 Windows Flavours 90.5 % Mac 5 % Unix Flavours 2.9 % Total percentage of these OS flavours - 98.4 % Total percentage of all other platforms - 1.6 % 3 Platforms... Win 95, Win 98 and NT account for 85.6 % of the market. Source CNET(July 1999): http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-345114.html Any current OS stats kicking around? Also to note a recent quote regarding Windows ME sales from CNET... September 20, 2000, 4:00 p.m. PT REDMOND, Wash.--Microsoft sold 250,000 copies of its new Windows operating system for consumers in U.S. stores during the first four days since it was released Thursday, according to a report issued by research firm PC Data. That put it on track to sell more then 400,000 units in its first month and more than 1 million units at retail stores before the end of the year. Source http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-2825900.html?tag=st.ne.1002.srchres.ni Rather than getting into the whole "Microsoft Sucks" debate which, from a marketing point of view, is irrelevant, suffice to say that I only see 3 platforms, and at the most, 5 or 6. The phrase "and it operates on over 40 platforms!!!" is often heard coming out of my mouth... at least when clients are around. :) T Brownell

 [2/22] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 23-Sep-2000 21:33


----- Original Message ----- From: <[tbrownell--yahoo--com]> To: <[list--rebol--com]> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [REBOL] Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but....
> Below are some old OS market share stats (no doubt > Unix flavours have grown). It's clear the Microsoft > has the monopoly on OS's. An interesting point.. > apparently DOS has a greater market share than Linux > and Unix combined (although this may have changed as > well) and yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform?
Then world did a mistake. Amiga was 32 bit in 86, wasn't it? DOS could be nice because of embedded sphera. I am still not comfort enough with unix complexity, but on the other hand there are floppy versions of linux, qnx rtp, and hopefully, amiga/tao will come too .... forget DOS - 16 bit. RT could become with native rebol version, but well, then we are at it once again, ... oh no, another os ... :-) For me - amiga/tao and qnx rtp and maybe linux or java os are multiplatform ways to follow. .... rebol will hopefully work upon all of them :-)
> Rather than getting into the whole "Microsoft Sucks"
Microsoft Sucks ;-)
> debate which, from a marketing point of view, is > irrelevant, suffice to say that I only see 3 > platforms, and at the most, 5 or 6. > > The phrase "and it operates on over 40 platforms!!!" > is often heard coming out of my mouth... at least when > clients are around. :)
Hmm, then wait for Amiga/Tao and QNX Rtp versions, the OSes will operate on so many CPUs :-) -pekr-

 [3/22] from: news:ted:husted at: 23-Sep-2000 15:46


On 9/23/2000 at 12:14 PM [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
>yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform?
The conventional wisdom would be that people who are using DOS generally aren't shopping for new software. This is also a reason commercial applications are built for the latest-and-greatest computers (rather than the mode). The people with new computers are the ones looking for new software. -Ted.

 [4/22] from: jsc:dataheaven at: 23-Sep-2000 22:31


On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Below are some old OS market share stats (no doubt > Unix flavours have grown). It's clear the Microsoft > has the monopoly on OS's. An interesting point.. > apparently DOS has a greater market share than Linux > and Unix combined (although this may have changed as > well) and yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform?
Oh yes lets bring REBOL to good 'ol Q-DOS - best OS ever made. (Men I never heard such a trash)
> Market share of OS's as of July 1999 > > Windows Flavours 90.5 % > Mac 5 % > Unix Flavours 2.9 % > > Total percentage of these OS flavours - 98.4 % > Total percentage of all other platforms - 1.6 %
Sponsored by whom?
> 3 Platforms... Win 95, Win 98 and NT account for 85.6 > % of the market.
Thats 3 Platforms??? Where's the difference between win95 and win98?
> Source CNET(July 1999): > http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-345114.html > > Any current OS stats kicking around?
Sure look at www.microsoft.com they certainly have what you search.
> Also to note a recent quote regarding Windows ME sales > from CNET...
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> in its first month and more than 1 million units at > retail stores before the end of the year."
This the good old standard Ad of Microsoft that is published to push sales.
> Source > http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-2825900.html?tag=st.ne.1002.srch
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> irrelevant, suffice to say that I only see 3 > platforms, and at the most, 5 or 6.
I don't know what you thought you will hear saying such nonsense? If the only 3 Platforms that count for you are Win95,98,NT Why not learning Visual Basic to be really portable between this whole range of OSs.
> The phrase "and it operates on over 40 platforms!!!" > is often heard coming out of my mouth... at least when > clients are around. :)
Bullshit! You seem to come from marketing. I for my part work in environments with more OSs - Linux x86, Alpha - Tru64, Alpha - HP-UX - MacOS - PalmOS - EPOC32 - Win9x,NT In reality you cannot force your clients to use your "3 Platforms" There are much more OSs around and so much more possibilities in future. The MS-Windows x86 liga was the only factor that hindered the rise of more modern network-oriented crossplatform appliances. The "one fits all" Philosophy of Microsoft is fault that we have lost years and years of internet-evolution. We _need_ different machines and we _need_ different OSs. I dont' want to transport my furniture in a Porsche 911 and I do not want to travel by car if I had to do it in a truck! The army don't use Boeing 777 as Fighters and travellers don't fly in F16s in holidays. My words could be a little bit harsh - the please sorry - but something must happen with those dumb marketing guys that they realize the reality!!! If you work in an MS environment - its your thing But don't force me and the many others that follow another way to concentrate on using inferior technology. Regards Jochen Schmidt

 [5/22] from: jsc::dataheaven::de at: 23-Sep-2000 22:33


On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> On 9/23/2000 at 12:14 PM [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote: > >yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform?
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> latest-and-greatest computers (rather than the mode). The people with > new computers are the ones looking for new software.
Really wise spoken - good point!

 [6/22] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 23-Sep-2000 15:34


SHORT VERSION: The issue is not how many boxes, but how many of the really important boxes! LONG VERSION: Well... mumble! I have a real problem with numbers such as the following (and my problem is with CNET, not the messenger;-) [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
> Market share of OS's as of July 1999 > Windows Flavours 90.5 %
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> Source CNET(July 1999): > http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-345114.html
Total percentage measured by what? Number of boxes sold with that O/S installed? Retail sales of that O/S? Breakdown of people called via random phone sampling and asked, "How many computers do you have and what O/S do you run on each?" Total dollar volume of installed base? ... You get the idea. Now, how many users (dial-in or otherwise) running w95 can one decent-sized Unix/Linux server support? If your answer is at least 30, then 90% of the boxes running wxx vs. 3% of the boxes running Unix sounds like breakeven to me! I recently saw a "report" by a "technology consulting firm" (I hope the quotes convey even a fraction of my sarcastic view of those folks and their work product) which dismissed Linux as insignificant BECAUSE OF the low total $ value of installed copies. However, later in the same report they mentioned the fact that it was common for users to download Linux from the 'Net, get CDs burned by friends, or for a business to buy one CD set and install on multiple machines. Am I the only one who sees the incredible irony and self-contradiction here? Other sources can be found which deal with more focused views of the installed base of O/S (or other) software. For example, last time I looked Unix/Linux was on the overwhelming majority of Internet servers. I'd rather have 25% of THAT market than 100% of the Radio Shack customer base, if I wanted to change the shape of the software world.
> Rather than getting into the whole "Microsoft Sucks" > debate ... >
I wasn't aware that this was even remotely debatable! ;-) -jn-

 [7/22] from: tim:johnsons-web at: 23-Sep-2000 14:44


Hello: My two cents worth here: I've been programming on and writing CGI for windows for years. I have found windows NT servers to be unstable and undependable. (Given the Microsoft Certification programs may be worthy, they are expensive.) Thus I am migrating to Linux, and programming for Linux servers. I think that rebol is on the right track here in targeting multiple OS's. Also, I'm in the process of evaluating Win4Lin, could be the start of merging OS's. More to the point: We may see a windows platform with a Linux Kernel someday. Oh! and who does own CNET? And let's re-evaluate market share base on servers, not desktops. Inquiring minds want to know..... -Tim [joel--neely--fedex--com] wrote:

 [8/22] from: rishi:picostar at: 23-Sep-2000 16:37


I recently emailed rebol regarding support for R/View on qnx rtp. They basically said probably, but they haven't decided yet. I recommend anyone else who wants to see rebol/view on qnx rtp to email rebol and let them know. Qnx RTP is a great platform and is supposed to be launched September 26th...and will be available for free...I'm sure having Rebol/View on it as early as possible would be a good thing (before people become hooked on the other languages). Rishi O.

 [9/22] from: greg_piney:mcgraw-hill at: 23-Sep-2000 18:25


Those numbers are for the DESKTOP, not the back room where the real corporate money is made. Greg Piney [tbrownell--yahoo--com] on 09/23/2000 03:14:41 PM Please respond to [list--rebol--com] To: [list--rebol--com] cc: (bcc: Greg Piney/McGraw-Hill/US) Subject [REBOL] Over 40 Platforms make for good press, : but.... Below are some old OS market share stats (no doubt Unix flavours have grown). It's clear the Microsoft has the monopoly on OS's. An interesting point.. apparently DOS has a greater market share than Linux and Unix combined (although this may have changed as well) and yet there is no Rebol/DOS platform? Market share of OS's as of July 1999 Windows Flavours 90.5 % Mac 5 % Unix Flavours 2.9 % Total percentage of these OS flavours - 98.4 % Total percentage of all other platforms - 1.6 % 3 Platforms... Win 95, Win 98 and NT account for 85.6 % of the market. Source CNET(July 1999): http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-345114.html Any current OS stats kicking around? Also to note a recent quote regarding Windows ME sales from CNET... September 20, 2000, 4:00 p.m. PT REDMOND, Wash.--Microsoft sold 250,000 copies of its new Windows operating system for consumers in U.S. stores during the first four days since it was released Thursday, according to a report issued by research firm PC Data. That put it on track to sell more then 400,000 units in its first month and more than 1 million units at retail stores before the end of the year. Source http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-2825900.html?tag=st.ne.1002.srchres.n i Rather than getting into the whole "Microsoft Sucks" debate which, from a marketing point of view, is irrelevant, suffice to say that I only see 3 platforms, and at the most, 5 or 6. The phrase "and it operates on over 40 platforms!!!" is often heard coming out of my mouth... at least when clients are around. :) T Brownell

 [10/22] from: tbrownell:y:ahoo at: 23-Sep-2000 17:19


It just depends who your targeting. The 1% "other" category or everybody else. It's not about which is better, but which is actually being used. I remember drooling over an Atari 800 with a whopping 8k of RAM (expandable to 16k if you had the extra $400.)with a casette deck for a drive, but couldn't afford it. Same story with the first Mac's. Ended up going the clone route like everybody else. Even Amiga's looked nice, but just didn't have the status quo. When was the last time you walked into a computer shop and saw folks bying Amigas and Ataris? Or more importantly, software for them? Gotta go with the status quo. That is, if your in the business of selling your scripts. If not, then who cares. Put it on EPOC32... whatever the hell that is. T Brownell --- [jsc--dataheaven--de] wrote:

 [11/22] from: jsc:dataheaven at: 24-Sep-2000 5:22


First: Ok I think some people might have problems with the sarcastic way I talked upon this topic in the last post. So I beg Your pardon - I will try to be more rational in my opinion to this important topic. On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> It just depends who your targeting. The 1% "other" > category or everybody else.
But only if we try to think in old terms and look backwards in history. If we try to go new ways we should think about using other than mainstream solutions.
> It's not about which is better, but which is actually > being used.
If we discuss what platforms should be targeted for a new approach like REBOL we _should_ look for the better alternatives not for the failures of history.
> I remember drooling over an Atari 800 with a whopping > 8k of RAM (expandable to 16k if you had the extra
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> Amiga's looked nice, but just didn't have the status > quo.
But thats not the point - I do not say we should target a old forgotten platform like this Atari 800! The other poster wished to have REBOL on an old dead OS (DOS) not I. What I try to say is, that NEW technologies like REBOL need to be targeted to NEW computers. (Similar like Ted stated) I thought we are here to take REBOL to the future! I see no future in Microsofts "One fits all" concept. RT seem to have realized that and so REBOL is targeted at a broad range of different machines. I've seen machine-controlsytems by Siemens that use Windows NT instead of a RealtimeOS. They tried that with a special hardware so that Windows only had to give the commands what to do and the special-hardware is responsible for realtime-actions. A huge expense has to be done to use a OS like Windows NT for a purpose it never was thought for. I've also seen Windows 9x boxes at internet cafes. The maintainers said that they are much easier to use than a Windows NT system or maybe UN*X. After weeksof destructive deeds against this systems the maintainers tried to make the machines scure by using special Win9x security tools. But suddenly only one person could maintain this machines not otherperson understood the chaos. We are now at some new point: We have a new language that tries to do NEW things in a NEW way. This language has a good theoretic foundation, similar to languages like CommonLisp or Scheme. It doesnt't try to simulate old concepts like Java or Python and it's not an ugly hack like Perl. Now we have to think how the future SHOULD look like (_not_ "could") Should we stay in the line of Microsoft & Co.? Should we orient us on old dead things? Think different! You realize - I cannot speak on this Topic and staying fully rational. We need to be motivated to get out of our lethargy. Regards Jochen Schmidt

 [12/22] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 24-Sep-2000 6:13


----- Original Message ----- From: <[rishi--picostar--com]> To: <[list--rebol--com]> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 1:37 AM Subject: [REBOL] Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but.... Re:(2)
> I recently emailed rebol regarding support for R/View on qnx rtp. They
basically said probably, but
> they haven't decided yet. I recommend anyone else who wants to see
rebol/view on qnx rtp to email
> rebol and let them know. Qnx RTP is a great platform and is supposed to be
launched September
> 26th...and will be available for free...I'm sure having Rebol/View on it
as early as possible would
> be a good thing (before people become hooked on the other languages).
Heh, RT was offered possibility of bundling REBOL as a package with default distribution of RtP which is gonna be available in few days (26.9.) by CEO of QSSL, Dan Dodge. I've suggested Carl to go for it. greenboy, chief of Phoenix developers consortium suggested REBOL/View to Carl too IIRC, but now you can see how the company thinks of what is/what is not important .... sadly ... -pekr-

 [13/22] from: carl:cybercraft at: 24-Sep-2000 16:56


On 24-Sep-00, [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
> It just depends who your targeting. The 1% "other" > category or everybody else.
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
> business of selling your scripts. If not, then who > cares. Put it on EPOC32... whatever the hell that is.
That's an attitude that might make sense if you believe the future will just be like the present, and I'd probably agree with you if the roads were still full of black Model Ts, but they're not and so I won't. I don't see a future with just a few OSs having 90% of the market, but dozens of them and in every device imaginable. And of course, they'll all be chattering to each other over the Net. This is why cross-platform matters. The future is probably no OS with more than 20% of the market - when you include phones in the market... Like you I also drooled over an Atari 800, but bought a ZX81 instead. Had two Commodore 64s since then, three Amigas... And you know what? I'm sick of leaving my programs behind with each change of platform, or having them become useless because of an OS upgrade. I'm also sick of having to learn new programming languages with every switch of platform. REBOL's probably a nice language, (give me time:), but if it wasn't cross-platform I wouldn't be here. As to EPOC32, it's the Psions's OS. See... http://www.psion.com/ They look kinda nice and kinda fun and are apparently quite popular. Give me a good reason why they should be ignored?

 [14/22] from: jsc:dataheaven at: 24-Sep-2000 7:58


On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> That's an attitude that might make sense if you believe the future > will just be like the present, and I'd probably agree with you if the
<<quoted lines omitted: 15>>
> They look kinda nice and kinda fun and are apparently quite popular. > Give me a good reason why they should be ignored?
Yes fantastic! _That_ is what I try to say whole the time. The future of OSs is very similar to REBOLs dialecting facilities! We will have highly specialized OSs but can run (With some limits) the same applications on all of them. Some applications will need a special OS/Device but a huge amount of standard software will run everywhere. Regards, Jochen Schmidt

 [15/22] from: rishi:picostar at: 24-Sep-2000 0:31


> Heh, RT was offered possibility of bundling REBOL as a package with default > distribution of RtP which is gonna be available in few days (26.9.) by CEO
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> sadly ... > -pekr-
Holy Moly!!!!! What was Rebol thinking....That would have been a great opportunity considering there probably isn't much effort needed into porting to qnx rtp. This is shocking to me that they passed up this opportunity...especially considering a lot of the people who will initially be using qnx rtp are coming from the amiga and beos (like me) crowd...exactly the same type of people who would use rebol. What a shame.... Rishi

 [16/22] from: jackseay:earthlink at: 24-Sep-2000 4:06


[carl--cybercraft--co--nz] said at [REBOL] Re: Over 40 Platforms make for good press, but.... Re:(2). [Sep/24/2000Sun 00:56] ... ... -> Gotta go with the status quo. ... ... -That's an attitude that might make sense if you believe the future -will just be like the present, and I'd probably agree with you if the -roads were still full of black Model Ts, but they're not and so I won't. I also don't believe Winxx, Macxx, and *nix are the OS's that will be used by most people 10 years from now. They won't be able to compete with the new generation of OS's, of which BeOS, QNX and Amiga/Elate are examples. Even these will probably be surpassed in a few years. We probably won't even call them OS's anymore, but distributed agent/ objects or something. They will have multi-dimensional unbreakable links, automatic version archiving and comparison, no configuration problems, be multi and distributed processing, and will adapt to the user instead of forcing the opposite. They will provide for automatic or easy payments of royalties, allow simple comment adding to any document, and won't require years of study to be able to produce an interactive document-program. And your whole work setup and all files will be securely and instantly at your service from any computer on the net. Every computer will be both server and client without requiring a computer science degree to configure and protect. You can't do all this using the status quo, but it can all be done, and is in development right now. -I don't see a future with just a few OSs having 90% of the market, but -dozens of them and in every device imaginable. And of course, -they'll all be chattering to each other over the Net. This is why -cross-platform matters. The future is probably no OS with more than -20% of the market - when you include phones in the market... This will make cross-platform languages and data the norm. -Like you I also drooled over an Atari 800, but bought a ZX81 instead. -Had two Commodore 64s since then, three Amigas... And you know what? - I'm sick of leaving my programs behind with each change of platform, -or having them become useless because of an OS upgrade. I'm also -sick of having to learn new programming languages with every switch -of platform. REBOL's probably a nice language, (give me time:), but -if it wasn't cross-platform I wouldn't be here. My computer history is almost identical to yours: ZX81, C64, 4 Amigas, and 2 Mac laptops. In the future, I also want to have data and programs that will follow me to my next system, or I should say follow me around. ------------------ Jack Seay [jackseay--usa--net] http://home.earthlink.net/~jackseay/jack

 [17/22] from: news:ted:husted at: 24-Sep-2000 7:06


On 9/23/2000 at 5:19 PM [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
> Same story with the first Mac's. Ended up going the clone route like
everybody else. Even Amiga's looked nice, but just didn't have the status quo. I think by "status quo" you really mean applications. People have always chosen computers based on whether it runs the software they want or need. The computer is actually a commodity -- it's the applications that matter. Likewise, a developer chooses a programming platform based on the available libraries, toolkits, and support networks. To many of us, things like Perl, Python, and REBOL (or PHP, ASP, and JSP) are commodities. We can use one in the morning and another in the afternoon. Whether we choose one over the other for a pariticular project often depends on more than the core language, but on everything that goes with it now (and everything we believe will go with it later). -Ted.

 [18/22] from: news:ted:husted at: 24-Sep-2000 7:14


On 9/24/2000 at 4:06 AM [jackseay--earthlink--net] wrote:
> Every computer will be both server and client without requiring a
computer science degree to configure and protect. You can't do all this using the status quo, but it can all be done, and is in development right now. It wasn't so long ago that "entry-level" tasks people do every day with ordinary spreadsheet software would have required a team of programmers. Then, the dream was an OS that would run on computers from different manufacturers. As it ever was. Hopefully things will be much different by 2035, when the Windows time functions expire. -Ted.

 [19/22] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 24-Sep-2000 16:49


Hello [rishi--picostar--com]! On 24-Set-00, you wrote: r> I recently emailed rebol regarding support for R/View on qnx r> rtp. They basically said probably, but they haven't decided They HAVE to port /View on RTP, why else did they partecipate to the Phoenix consortium? I'd like to have an intent version too, but while RTP is a reality (two days away!), the AmigaOE is still rather mysterious. (And I'm saying that having bought the Amiga SDK.) I should get the free CD, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[giesse--writeme--com]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila -- http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/

 [20/22] from: tbrownell:yah:oo at: 24-Sep-2000 11:15


True, but the "status quo" isn't going to just roll over and die. If they don't "get a mit and get in the game" they'll vanish. A couple of years ago Apple nearly folded up. What pulled them back from the edge of oblivion? Jobs and some new designs. We see it often, superior products that can't crack the status quo. Tell me. What killer app, what "must have" will any new OS bring that won't be ported by Gates and others within weeks as they did with browsers, e-mail, servers etc.? But with one HUGE difference. The new OS starts off with 0% of the market share, while the others, 100 %. I remember poking around with OS/2 when it came out. If I recall, multi-tasking was it's big feature, until the competition came along and BAM, your Amiga Toast(er). I'm not a Microsoft pundit, I don't like monopolies and will drop them in a moment when a POPULAR, SUPERIOR product comes along. The Microsoft/Intel dynamic duo has had this advantage - cheap. And nothing puts you into the status quo faster than that. Imagine if Rebol/Core came out at $99 with no demo software. A bargain no doubt. But I dare say this list would be a lot thinner. It's not the tools, but what you do with them. It's about ideas. What can you do with Rebol that you can't do with the language it's layered on? But the idea is great. Rebol allows those that have ideas, but not the 5 years to learning C (or whatever) bring those ideas to fruition. T Brownell --- [jackseay--earthlink--net] wrote:

 [21/22] from: carl:cybercraft at: 25-Sep-2000 9:55


On 25-Sep-00, [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
> Tell me. What killer app, what "must have" will any > new OS bring that won't be ported by Gates and others > within weeks as they did with browsers, e-mail, > servers etc.? But with one HUGE difference. The new > OS starts off with 0% of the market share, while the > others, 100 %.
But a new OS that can run cross-platforn apps, (Java, REBOL, any number of others in the future), won't be starting off with 0% market share, will it?

 [22/22] from: news:ted:husted at: 24-Sep-2000 21:01


> On 9/24/2000 at 11:15 AM [tbrownell--yahoo--com] wrote:
Tell me. What killer app, what "must have" will any new OS bring that won't be ported by Gates and others within weeks as they did with browsers, e-mail, servers etc.? But with one HUGE difference. The new OS starts off with 0% of the market share, while the others, 100 %. How about something that actually did .NET out of the box? Gates wishes he could port the PalmOS, but can't because they are mired in the Windows Everywhere strategy. Likewise, IBM (and Apple) couldn't or wouldn't accept the open architecture model, and so their fortunes fell (or fell short). Microsoft will eventually fail because the Internet makes the OS a commodity, and one day Windows won't matter anymore. -Ted.

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted