On 5/22/15 10:29 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/22/15 7:19 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote:

It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else
could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever
more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly
sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed
superior to the PC until at least 1988.

Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for
individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward
professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of
expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any
other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing
cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The
professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost
over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other
computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it
was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources.

Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only
ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it
because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running.
But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8"
B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs.

There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as
multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of
the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there
still isn't much in the way of competition for it.

The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC
between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari
ST, you had no choice but to pay more.

The PC is a platform to build systems for professional use. IBM & MS
established industry standards for hardware and software that allowed
developers to market advanced products, the result being both better
performance and a better investment for businesses. Apple captured
the "out of the box" market after moving away from their Apple ][,
and neither Commodore nor Atari could keep up or overtake the
momentum from either of those directions.



Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_
additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had
for a lot less.

Those "competitors" were a bad investment for businesses because
they were not compatible with anything that was actually being used.
Every try to run Lotus 123 or WordPerfect on an Atari ST?

1-2-3 no, but WP yes. I still have my 4.x disks and manual for the
Atari ST.

I know that folks can run software on non-standard OSes. The question is, is
it worth it (The answer is already determined by the marketplace)?

In those days, the Atari file format and the PC file format for Word
Perfect were the same. The Mac format wasn't, because the Mac format
had graphic capabilities the PC couldn't do. The Atari could do those
formats, but WP chose not to go that route, apparently.

If you think about it, it wasn't the program, it was the file created
that was the problem. My first computer was, and still is (G) an
Atari 800. I couldn't use Zardax or Appleworks, but if I could have
read and written their files, who would have cared what program I
used? It's the end product that's important, not the program being
used. Or which computer system.

On one hand the file format is always the issue. Many people are willing to
use software that can read another app's format and save a file in that
format. The problem is, this only works for elementary-level work and screws
up anything else. Businesses are not going to go through that, and one great
way to lose a customer is to screw up their file after you edit it.

The problem is likely to be the proprietary file format that is the
problem. If everyone switched to the same file format, and followed the
rules for that format, I don't see where there would be a problem. But
that doesn't include the issues that arise due to buggy software.

The world started slowly moving that way when Adobe created and
released the PDF file format. Now you have the open file formats
(odt, ods, etc.). Who cares what program the originator of a file
used? When you get a PDF file do you really care if Adobe Acrobat
created the file? Or Word? Or Word Perfect? AutoCAD? MicroCAD?
No. You just want to be able to read it.

If you're the last step in the process, no problem. But, if it's an
interactive process, forget it (see above).

IMO, an interactive process shouldn't be a problem either. Rather than
having X number of people return X number of files all in .doc/.docx
file format, just have them use the annotation function of the a PDF
reader, and return the annotated PDF. Then, you have only one
..doc/.docx file to combine the edits in.

Since we are now in a global economy or whatever, why would you want
to force people to use MS Office over Libre Office when you compare
capabilities?

Because Libre/Open office is a real hack job compared to MS Office. If all
one needs is elementary work, those apps are OK, and I use it for that kind
of thing on a couple of computers. But, for complex spreadsheets or heavily
formatted documents one will waste a good deal of time and possibly never
get finished because of the many bugs that exist that will probably never be
corrected.

I'll agree about the bugs. I filed two bugs that were not important to
them to fix, which is why I gave up on LO. But just a few months ago, I
got emails that my bugs were now being worked on. Maybe there's been a
perspective change.

I just downloaded and installed the latest LO. Ugliest interface I
think I've ever seen. I'd take the Office ribbon of the current LO
default. LOL

[...]
History shows that
the PC was and still is the winning concept for professionals, so
it's hard to argue that it wasn't a deserved outcome.

I don't think you are on solid ground by saying the PC is the winning
concept. Today, it's the only concept.

The last one standing is a good definition of winning, AFAICT.

But on what basis did you become the last one standing? If it's on the
merits of your product, then I agree. But if you got there by breaking
agreements and MS broke many and lost in court, or the other guys were
badly managed, underfunded, whatever, then you didn't become the last
one standing because of a superior product.

I think if computer users in general were more knowledgeable, MS
wouldn't have it as easy as they do.

That's a tough speculation to supportn with facts.

I don't know how you would ever devise a method of testing this. But I
know, based on simply talking with people, that once their knowledge has
been increased about the options, You can see the light bulbs go on.
G The simple fact is, a lot of people think they need MS Office, when
the truth is for what they are going to try to do, it can be done with
less expensive and even free software. Not to mention, a lot of these
folks may have better places to spend their money than on MS software.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"