From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:02:44 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Dec20.202150.818@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Ran
dall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.3155.5785@dosgate>, "richard anstruther" <richard.anstrut
her@canrem.com> writes:
>
>|> If it were only a question of other OS's, Lotus, Borland and WP
>|> wouldn't care one way or the other.  It's applications too, or
>|> more specifically, MS's alleged habit of using its virtual
>|> monopoly in OS's
>
>First of all Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OS's.  If you want to
>run DOS programs and you don't want to go to Microsoft you can buy
>DR DOS from digital research.  And windows is facing very stiff competition
>from OS/2 now, and when Solaris from Sun, NeXTSTEP from NeXT, Taligent from
>Apple and IBM come out next year, nobody can say that the end user
>faces a lack of options in the marketplace.

Monopoly?  Not quite, but about as close as you are likely to see in this
industry.  The overwhelming majority of machines are MS-DOS based and this does
give them a definite leg up.

>
>|> to leverage other companies' apps out of the
>|> marketplace by giving its own application programmers the inside
>|> track to upcoming changes and undocumented features in the OS.
>
>Would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with that?  Besides
>whining "its not _fair_!!!"  Microsoft owns Windows and DOS.  What Microsoft
>wants to reveal or not reveal isn't anybody's business but Microsofts.
>
For applications, I agree completely.  For operating systems, not at all.  The
operating system is something everyone has to use.  If I don't like MS's apps
there are plenty of other options.  The situation is different with operating
systems.  The applications which best suit my needs happen to be written
mostly for MS-DOS.  I had no hand in this, it is simply a result of who
developed what for which platform.  If these applications are not as good as
they might be due to some practices of the company who made the system, that
does adversely affect the company which produces my application and by
extension it affects me.  MS-DOS and to a lesser extent Windows are still by
far the biggest games in town.  DR-DOS is simply a clone of MS-DOS with some
enhancements.  NeXTStep and Solaris aren't yet viable options.  OS/2 is really
the only other OS with possibilities.  (hence that's what I use)

>If Lotus, Borland, WP, Novel, et al don't like how Microsoft plays, they
>don't have to play with Microsoft.  Let them develop for UNIX or the Mac or
>OS/2 or VMS or OSF/1 or NeXTSTEP or TOS or AmigaDos DR DOS or the Acorn
>instead.
>

Why should they have to develop for some platform on which they cannot
maximize their products.  Developing for several diverse platforms is a good
idea, but that shouldn't prevent them from developing for the biggest platform.

What is comes down to is that if MicroSoft is going to make the rules, then
MicroSoft has to live with the rules they make.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy