Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[Toby Reiter <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu>]

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.  

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.  

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.  When the
IBM PC first came out, IBM was a name already familiar with most
businesses--it made perfect sense for them to pick up a familiar brand
name rather than an Apple II.  By the time Macintosh came out, the
average purchasing office of a large business, when buying the company's
computer, would ask "Is it standard?"  They never asked "Is it the best,
the most beautiful, the fastest, etc.?" because they were in an era where
new computer companies sprang up every year, and others folded, and they
wanted to make sure their equipment wouldn't be immediately obsolete. Of
course, more innovative companies might choose Apple II's, and later
Macintoshes because of their admiration for Apple or their preference for
the equipment.

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).

So, I just wanted to emphasize that Microsoft is only accountable
for producing a new OS, whereas Apple is responsible for producing the OS
and the computers to use it.

Toby Reiter