Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Toby Reiter <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu> wrote:

>I think there are two things to keep in mind when discussing the
>"successful" transfer from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95: 
>
>First, Microsoft is not responsible for the hardware which people use.
>Although Windows 95 is still "PC-Compatible", it definitely isn't Intel
>386 compatible.  In fact, most people are wary of using Windows 95 on
>anything other than a fast 486 or Pentium--or better.  In a sense, Windows
>95 required a complete hardware upgrade.

Well, look hardware issues are not the problem.  People have to
upgrade hardware sooner or later.  When Apple made the IIGS,
people were happy even though they had to get a new computer
to upgrade to GS/OS (GS/OS would not run on the IIe).  The
important point is that the IIe's hardware and software could run
on the GS, not the other way around.  Basically, the IIGS was a
real upgrade.

IIe -> IIGS = reasonable upgrade
Mac 68k -> PPC = reasonable upgrade
IIGS -> Mac = unreasonable upgrade

The latter would be equivalent to Microsoft initially coming out with
a Windows 95 that said "to hell with 3.1 compatibility" and then
when users complained and stuck to 3.1, Microsoft forcing them
to switch by killing 3.1.  That never happened, of course...MS was
wise to make Windows 95 able to run 3.1 and DOS software.
Build on your existing user base!

>Second, people, in general, are more willing to buy computers more
>frequently then they were in, say, 1984.  It's not uncommon for many  
>people to buy a new computer once every two years.  It's not
>unheard of for a person to buy a new computer every 6 months.

Using both Macintosh and Wintel, I think the above assessment is
accurate for Macintosh users.  For Wintel, the cycle may be quite
a bit longer because of the various upgrade paths available (like
Evergreen drop in processor upgrades).

>I think, in general, average computer purchasers are not TOO concerned
>about software compatibility, and probably don't care one bit about
>hardware (since most new computer packages come with a better video or
>sound card installed then the one they already have). I think that it's
>important for people to understand that most people, even PC users, are
>woefully ignorant when it comes to what's in their computer, and that when
>the purchase a new computer, they go for the industry standard.

The average person, in my opinion, is concerned about whether the
new computer and the new OS will run his/her OLD hardware and
software (at least the ones he/she bought one or two years ago...).

No one is really concerned that the new software run on old
hardware.  That's unreasonable...

>When Windows 95 came out, there was already a well-established PC market
>which was basically addicted to the DOS-WIN 3.x OS. People were starting
>to become a little more concerned about computer performance (rather than
>industry standard), so they wanted to know that WIN 95 was better. Bill
>showed them it was, and, because they still don't know that much about
>computers, they bought it completely. He wasn't responsible for selling 
>them the hardware on top of the software, even though the software
>basically necessitated it. Of course, WIN 95 is actually a pretty
>impressive OS sometimes, especially when run by a confident
>computer user on a really good computer system.  However, the Mac
>equivalent still runs circles around it (in my opinion).

I used to hate Windows 3.1, but used it because I had to.  I loved
the Macintosh interface.  I still find the PowerMac HARDWARE
more powerful, but I think Windows 95 has caught up in terms of
interface.

If you've rigged a comparison of Windows 95 on a 486 and
MacOS on a G3, then of course the Mac will perform better.  But
try running the Windows 95 on a 200Mhz or greater Pentium and
the MacOS on a G3.  Give the PC a benefit of the doubt.  Use
it for a time, putting aside prejudice.  With lots of memory, hard
drive speed, and processor power, I think Windows has caught up.

If you STILL hate Windows 95, that's probably because you got
used to the way the MacOS works, not because it is better.
Same thing the other way around...