strangest systems I've sent email from
lproven at gmail.com
Fri May 20 11:24:45 CDT 2016
On 18 May 2016 at 21:40, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
> But, "Moore's Law" held that it wouldn't be much longer.
> Just one doubling of the speed of the Lisa's hardware would have been enough
> to silence the speed complaints.
A general point, really.
One of Microsoft's strokes of brilliance was selectively exploiting
this. I think maybe it learned it from the 80286 OS/2 1.x débacle.
NT 3.1 was brilliant if a bit bulky and unoptimised. Fair enough, it
was a v1.0 OS. It was way way WAY too heavy for the average 1993 PC,
but power users played, partly 'cos it fixed serious problems with
(You could run a Win3.1 16-bit app in its own memory space & thus
slightly get round Win3.1's terrible low resource limitations. Source:
my customers did it, and paid GBP 5K for a PC to run it on for that
NT 3.5 fixed some of that and now the PC was £3.5K or so.
NT 3.51 was pretty good and now the PC was £2.5-£2K -- in other words,
accessible to a high-end power user. The Win3 UI kept the proles away
-- they wanted the friendlier Win95.
NT 4 brought the UI, and now, a plain vanilla high-end PC could run it.
The cycle sort of repeated with XP and Vista -- they were aimed a bit
above the vanilla cheapo turn-of-the-century PC and its successor. The
market caught up as they matured.
Selectively aiming a bit ahead of where the ordinary PC was allowed MS
to refine the OSes in public, so they were ready for prime-time by the
time that the market had caught up.
IBM, OTOH, aimed at the thousands of boxes /it had already sold/ and
so totally torpedoed its own product.
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
More information about the cctalk