<My point was not that you don't know how to use other products, but that people generally tend to think that the things they know how to use are the best products.>
Right, and I know how to use a bunch of desktop apps. I never learned on a MSFT app, so according to your logic, I should not think MSFT is the best. Like I said, I standardized on MSFT because they offered the best product.
<The reason that MSFT's products have been successful, imo, is that they are everywhere, not because they are better. Why are they everywhere, and how did they get there?>
They are everywhere because they were better. Maybe not in the beginning, but in the end, yes. I could run down a list , but it would be fruitless.
<It is my opinion, and apparently that of lots of others, that MSFT has been using unfair, and probably illegal, tactics to get their products onto the desktop.>
We have been through this before. MSFT got to the desktop because the industry leaders of the time decided to develop for OS/2 instead of Windows, and they missed the Tornado.
<The features you mentioned wrt. MSFT products (auto. completion, context sensitive help, etc.) have been available in my favorite application (emacs) since the 1970s. It's wierd that you think that just because MSFT put them into software that they're new and/or great.>
I never said they were new or great, I said that they were implemented for PC productivity software. You told me I didn't know what I was talking about and challenged me to name products, which I did. Let's keep the story straight, five minutes is not long enough for me to forget the "actual" course of events. |
