I was forced to use it on a project and it was extremely painful. BTW, it hung around for several years as I used it from 1996 - 1999 on a program with the Navy.
The Navy (in 2000) finally decided that tablets were too costly and overhyped to properly do the job. They disposed of every bit of tablet based hardware software that related to th eprogram and wen't with plain ol' Dell laptops.
On the bright side, pilferage of the tablets was shockingly low.
And, that's why we can't joke about it, if they decide to challange Apple in this VERY importand software familly.
People should understand this.
mel, I still think you're missing one critical piece in your argument:
That case, is one of MS vs. *other Windows developers*. "You already run our OS, and you already run a bunch of our software, whether you want to or not, so hey - we've got a new product, and let's see, we'll give you a better deal on the rest of it if you buy that too, 'k?"
With someone looking to purchase a Mac, even to run windows, it's because *they're already looking elsewhere*. "You're thinking of buying a Mac? Why, when our stuff is 'just as good', really. Besides you won't be able to run your old softw... oh, um, you won't be able to use your old... er... Did we mention we're 'just as good'?" If someone is looking at the Mac, they already realize that 'just as good' isn't the truth.
I don't see them as equivalent, sorry.
And that's *after* all this ball of wax (and Vista!) comes out. What, another 9-12 months?
[B]Wellllll, it was half and half. Read some of the insider histories on Netscape, they're quite telling. They managed to blow a huge lead quite successfully, and MS's deluge of FUD and $$ was the final nail. They kind of sidled up to the cliff edge, and MS shoved them over.
I was around back then. I bought Netscape stock the first day it was issued (sold it at $200). I'm pretty familliar with what went on. It all too often, seems as though history gets rewritten, Netscape was steamrollered. There wasn't much that they could do.
Netscape had two products. One was selling for $39.95, and was doing well. That was the Netscape browser. The other was the Netscapeenterprise server software, which was also doing well.
At this time in the very early dawn of the internet, companies would buy the enterprise server software from the same company they bought the browser from. It was pretty simple. There wasn't too much choice either. Basically that and Apache.
When MS bought it's browser, it was pretty rotten. But they improved it, using the free standards Necscape was coming out with. Bur, no one wanted it The same for the server software they were selling. It didn't doo that well.
Then Gates gave an interview where he said that he thought that MS should be able to charge for every bit that flowed through a network.
There was much commentary on that. It was said, correctly, that MS couldn't do that unless their server software was on most machines, an unlikely prospect, at the time.
But then, MS shocked everyone by giving Explorer away for free. That move, it was said, cost MS $350 million directly, in lost sales, plus another $150 million they spent advertizing it.
Sales of Navigator dropped rapidly. At this time Netscape was still considered to be superioe to Explorer 3. But, then Netscape stopped charging for Navigator as well.
What must be understood is the context of the time. Home sales of computers had just begun to take off in the mid '90's. People were still very insecure about downloading and installing something if it was already right there in front of them. Because of that, Netscapes adoption continued to drop.
As a result of that drop, sales of their enterprise server software dropped as well. Netscape was in disarray! Without the money coming in from the browser, they were forced to cut back severely on R&D. Their browser fell behind Explorer, and so its use fell even further. So did the sale of the server product.
Meanwhile, MS's server software sales increased, but apache remained number 1.
However, as an aside, MS's server has now surpassed Apache. Can you see where this is leading?
Quote:
And I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to the idea that more 'tablet-specific software' is the answer. This is exactly the wrong thing to do, IMO, for a tablet to succeed, and it's the reason that the current TabletPC units suck ass... they try to be too much of "ooooh look! I'm a *TABLET*!" instead of just getting out of the way and letting work get done. Compare TabletPC's input method to Ink... Ink is just a lot more natural, and gets out of the way. ie, it works with the apps the user already has, it doesn't try and force them to buy all-new-and-sparkly apps that don't do squat to assist them. </rant>
Ok, you can disagree.
But, if a tablet doesn't have some purpose to exist, then it won't. I know that journalists love tablets. It's also vused in hospitals, and other mobile uses where PDA's are just too primitive. More targeted apps for the general computing public could have more of an impact.
Ink might be great, but if PC users don't see it, it really doesn't matter.
Quote:
I disagree. Customers want solutions. They think MS is the only game in town, so they'll go with it, but they don't necessarily seek it out. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone say "Golly, if it's not MS, I won't buy it." Consumers have wizened up a bit.
Well, all I can say is that business has almost demanded that Palm come out with a Windows phone. Even though most every review over the years has said that Palms software sycn'd up to MS's better that MS's own PDA software, buisness people don't understand tha, and don't seem to care. They THINK that MS's solutions work better.
Quote:
True. However. The original comparison was MSLife to iLife, not MSLife to other Windows products, correct? So I'm not seeing how the money issue holds at this point. They're not taking on an OSS group, or a small developer, they're going to have to convince people who are considering purchasing a Mac, even to run Windows, that there's no reason to. That's a slightly different ballgame, IMO, because as you point out below, their v1 products generally stink. In a head-to-head comparison with iLife, they're not going to look good, is my guess.
The money issue is ALWAYS important when dealing with MS. It's thei money that allows to chug on when everyone else would have given up. If they target Apple's iLife apps, you know damn well they they will do whatever they have to. And from previous experience, I certainly think that that can be cause for worry.
Quote:
I don't think it should be disregarded, but I don't think it's time to Chicken Little, either.
No, it's not. But when I see people here saying what amounts to being simply stupid, I get concerned.
It all too often, seems as though history gets rewritten
Indeed. Your post is a good example of that. As Kickaha correctly stated, while Microsoft indeed heavily and unfairly attacked Netscape, Netscape made numerous huge management mistakes of their own. Any Netscape employee who was there at the time will confirm that to you.
Well, all I can say is that business has almost demanded that Palm come out with a Windows phone. Even though most every review over the years has said that Palms software sycn'd up to MS's better that MS's own PDA software, buisness people don't understand tha, and don't seem to care. They THINK that MS's solutions work better.
That's really more Palm's fault for being so rubbish. PalmOS's design is spot on but their OS should have been replaced eons ago and they've squandered their lead whilst Microsoft slowly improved and their competitors (Psion/Symbian/Apple) got out of the PDA all together and concentrated on growing markets (Phones) instead of dead ones.
Seems to me the issue is a bit overdone. IMO the biggest factor for Apple and MS will be how 'good' vista is when it finally reaches market. If it is appealing it will have a far greater impact in halting Apple's gain in market share than an iLife competitor. My 2 cents.
mel, I still think you're missing one critical piece in your argument:
That case, is one of MS vs. *other Windows developers*. "You already run our OS, and you already run a bunch of our software, whether you want to or not, so hey - we've got a new product, and let's see, we'll give you a better deal on the rest of it if you buy that too, 'k?"
With someone looking to purchase a Mac, even to run windows, it's because *they're already looking elsewhere*. "You're thinking of buying a Mac? Why, when our stuff is 'just as good', really. Besides you won't be able to run your old softw... oh, um, you won't be able to use your old... er... Did we mention we're 'just as good'?" If someone is looking at the Mac, they already realize that 'just as good' isn't the truth.
I don't see them as equivalent, sorry.
And that's *after* all this ball of wax (and Vista!) comes out. What, another 9-12 months?
You're assuming that these people all want to move over already. That's one thing. But people will only want to move over if they have a pretty good reason to.
If a big reason is because they've heard of iLife, but have never seen it. A very likely case, the your argument doesn't apply. And those are the people I'm talking about.
Don't forget that it's a BIG deal to move over. Most people are hesitant, and it won't take much to make them stay.
Obviously, that doesn't mean everyone.
But, as it was pointed in a column somewhere recently, it just takes a very small amount of Windows switchers to make a big difference to Apple. If even some of those possible switchers don't, then is will mean significant numbers for Apple, while meaning little to MS.
Indeed. Your post is a good example of that. As Kickaha correctly stated, while Microsoft indeed heavily and unfairly attacked Netscape, Netscape made numerous huge management mistakes of their own. Any Netscape employee who was there at the time will confirm that to you.
I'm pretty familiar with the history. It isn't wrong. I had a big stake in it at one time.
Netscape's management problems started after MS dropped the ball on them. Until then, they were doing fine
The disarray I mentioned came when the stock had dropped to almost nothing, and the money was almost all gone.
I'll tell you what Netscapes big mistake was.
It was the idea of an open internet. The one we have now, with standards that most everyone can use.
If Netscape, with almost a 98% marketshare, decided to not make its features available to every person, and company, who wrote a browser, then they would still have 98% marketshare.
But, they didn't, and MS was able to piggyback on their work.
Sure, I know that disgruntled employees, whose stock options disappeared in a puff of smoke had a lot to say. Some of it was true, some wasn't.
But, make no mistake about it. It was MS that bulled their way through. Netscape was a small fish whose pond MS drained.
I'm just going by numbers I read recently. It's been moving that way for years.
I'm familliar with that survey. But, what it doesn't show is that among the largest corporate servers, MS's product has moved past Apache, and that has been moving downscale. Most new installs of apache are small users who can't afford other products.
I should have clarified
Quote:
That's really more Palm's fault for being so rubbish. PalmOS's design is spot on but their OS should have been replaced eons ago and they've squandered their lead whilst Microsoft slowly improved and their competitors (Psion/Symbian/Apple) got out of the PDA all together and concentrated on growing markets (Phones) instead of dead ones.
Palm has the same problem everyone else has. It's tough going up against a company who, despite inferior products, continues to pick up marketshare.
Management has a difficult time deciding what part of the monolith to attack. Cobalt, which I saw, was very good, and would have competed on the high end, but the products needed to run it would have been too expensive. So, Palm is forced into incremental upgrades of an aging code base.
It was the idea of an open internet. The one we have now, with standards that most everyone can use.
Excuse me? Netscape? Standards? You mean the Netscape that kept W3C from releasing HTML 3.0 and instead created a wholly different HTML 3.2 with features that were never intended for HTML, a mess that we still have to deal with today? The Netscape that came up with such quixotic nonsense as the blink tag? Or the Netscape that renamed LiveScript to JavaScript just to bathe in Sun's marketing hype?
I think you meant to say 'profitable', not 'political'.
No, I mean political.
By that, I mean that even though MS would have kept only a small part of their userbase, the fact of having competed directly with Apple, where it's at its best, would be a political victory. Little profits would be involved, but the publicity would not.
Mind you, I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just covering the bases here.
Unfortunately, I have a meeting at my daughter's school, so I'll see you all later tonight.
Palm has the same problem everyone else has. It's tough going up against a company who, despite inferior products, continues to pick up marketshare.
Um, I'm going to have to disagree with this too - I haven't been impressed with anything Palm has put out since they started. It was a brain-dead device in the beginning, and as you say, they've only put on incremental upgrades since.
While I don't like PocketPC *either*, for entirely different reasons, it has the kitchen-sink approach that MS is known for, *and* 'strong' (quasi-) links to their flagship apps like Office.
If I was in the market for a handheld, I'd have to say that PocketPC is, actually, a better product for most people, scary as that is.
And if you knew how much I can't stand PocketPC, you'd know how little I think of Palm's offerings... \
Again, Palm has kinda buried themselves in this one.
Make no mistake, MS will force other companies' hands, and capitalize on *any* misstep... but Netscape and Palm both have made some tremendous blunders. (Apple too, historically, which is why we're in this Windows mess of a world to begin with.)
I'm just going by numbers I read recently. It's been moving that way for years.
I'm familliar with that survey. But, what it doesn't show is that among the largest corporate servers, MS's product has moved past Apache, and that has been moving downscale. Most new installs of apache are small users who can't afford other products.
I should have clarified
Hmmm. I'd appreciate proof of that statement. There's a 30 million domain gap between Apache and IIS. I don't doubt that more corporates are hosting on IIS servers because of .net and other Microsoft solutions but I find it hard to believe Netcraft have their figures off by that kind of margin.
Management has a difficult time deciding what part of the monolith to attack. Cobalt, which I saw, was very good, and would have competed on the high end, but the products needed to run it would have been too expensive. So, Palm is forced into incremental upgrades of an aging code base.
Hmmm. I don't believe that one either.
WinCE places a much higher demand on hardware than Cobalt and now they've gone for Linux - still higher than Cobalt. Plus they've still not even used Cobalt on the few high end models they did do.
If they wanted to still have low end models then they still had the old PalmOS there where Microsoft can't compete at all.
Management was definitely the problem as technically they had it right. However, I think they moved too slowly. The market moved to phones from PDAs and both Microsoft and Palm have been out manoeuvred by Symbian. That will become more obvious in the next year as single chip cheap phones running Symbian ship. Microsoft and Palm are years off.
Um, I'm going to have to disagree with this too - I haven't been impressed with anything Palm has put out since they started. It was a brain-dead device in the beginning, and as you say, they've only put on incremental upgrades since.
While I don't like PocketPC *either*, for entirely different reasons, it has the kitchen-sink approach that MS is known for, *and* 'strong' (quasi-) links to their flagship apps like Office.
If I was in the market for a handheld, I'd have to say that PocketPC is, actually, a better product for most people, scary as that is.
And if you knew how much I can't stand PocketPC, you'd know how little I think of Palm's offerings... \
Again, Palm has kinda buried themselves in this one.
Make no mistake, MS will force other companies' hands, and capitalize on *any* misstep... but Netscape and Palm both have made some tremendous blunders. (Apple too, historically, which is why we're in this Windows mess of a world to begin with.)
Ok, this a matter of personal preference. we can't butt heads over this. I can just lead to to take a look at the reviews of Palm's Treo with Palm's OS vs MS's OS.
Hmmm. I'd appreciate proof of that statement. There's a 30 million domain gap between Apache and IIS. I don't doubt that more corporates are hosting on IIS servers because of .net and other Microsoft solutions but I find it hard to believe Netcraft have their figures off by that kind of margin.
I'll try to find some date. I'm not saying that their numbers are off. I'm just saying that in the larger corporate world, IIS has gone ahead. You don't disagree with that.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Windows for Pen Computing - 1990(1?)
Oh that must have been painful.
Edit; point already made.
Originally posted by Anders
Oh that must have been painful.
I was forced to use it on a project and it was extremely painful. BTW, it hung around for several years as I used it from 1996 - 1999 on a program with the Navy.
The Navy (in 2000) finally decided that tablets were too costly and overhyped to properly do the job. They disposed of every bit of tablet based hardware software that related to th eprogram and wen't with plain ol' Dell laptops.
On the bright side, pilferage of the tablets was shockingly low.
Originally posted by melgross
And, that's why we can't joke about it, if they decide to challange Apple in this VERY importand software familly.
People should understand this.
mel, I still think you're missing one critical piece in your argument:
That case, is one of MS vs. *other Windows developers*. "You already run our OS, and you already run a bunch of our software, whether you want to or not, so hey - we've got a new product, and let's see, we'll give you a better deal on the rest of it if you buy that too, 'k?"
With someone looking to purchase a Mac, even to run windows, it's because *they're already looking elsewhere*. "You're thinking of buying a Mac? Why, when our stuff is 'just as good', really. Besides you won't be able to run your old softw... oh, um, you won't be able to use your old... er... Did we mention we're 'just as good'?" If someone is looking at the Mac, they already realize that 'just as good' isn't the truth.
I don't see them as equivalent, sorry.
And that's *after* all this ball of wax (and Vista!) comes out. What, another 9-12 months?
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Wellllll, it was half and half. Read some of the insider histories on Netscape, they're quite telling. They managed to blow a huge lead quite successfully, and MS's deluge of FUD and $$ was the final nail. They kind of sidled up to the cliff edge, and MS shoved them over.
I was around back then. I bought Netscape stock the first day it was issued (sold it at $200). I'm pretty familliar with what went on. It all too often, seems as though history gets rewritten, Netscape was steamrollered. There wasn't much that they could do.
Netscape had two products. One was selling for $39.95, and was doing well. That was the Netscape browser. The other was the Netscapeenterprise server software, which was also doing well.
At this time in the very early dawn of the internet, companies would buy the enterprise server software from the same company they bought the browser from. It was pretty simple. There wasn't too much choice either. Basically that and Apache.
When MS bought it's browser, it was pretty rotten. But they improved it, using the free standards Necscape was coming out with. Bur, no one wanted it The same for the server software they were selling. It didn't doo that well.
Then Gates gave an interview where he said that he thought that MS should be able to charge for every bit that flowed through a network.
There was much commentary on that. It was said, correctly, that MS couldn't do that unless their server software was on most machines, an unlikely prospect, at the time.
But then, MS shocked everyone by giving Explorer away for free. That move, it was said, cost MS $350 million directly, in lost sales, plus another $150 million they spent advertizing it.
Sales of Navigator dropped rapidly. At this time Netscape was still considered to be superioe to Explorer 3. But, then Netscape stopped charging for Navigator as well.
What must be understood is the context of the time. Home sales of computers had just begun to take off in the mid '90's. People were still very insecure about downloading and installing something if it was already right there in front of them. Because of that, Netscapes adoption continued to drop.
As a result of that drop, sales of their enterprise server software dropped as well. Netscape was in disarray! Without the money coming in from the browser, they were forced to cut back severely on R&D. Their browser fell behind Explorer, and so its use fell even further. So did the sale of the server product.
Meanwhile, MS's server software sales increased, but apache remained number 1.
However, as an aside, MS's server has now surpassed Apache. Can you see where this is leading?
And I'm sorry, but I have to take exception to the idea that more 'tablet-specific software' is the answer. This is exactly the wrong thing to do, IMO, for a tablet to succeed, and it's the reason that the current TabletPC units suck ass... they try to be too much of "ooooh look! I'm a *TABLET*!" instead of just getting out of the way and letting work get done. Compare TabletPC's input method to Ink... Ink is just a lot more natural, and gets out of the way. ie, it works with the apps the user already has, it doesn't try and force them to buy all-new-and-sparkly apps that don't do squat to assist them. </rant>
Ok, you can disagree.
But, if a tablet doesn't have some purpose to exist, then it won't. I know that journalists love tablets. It's also vused in hospitals, and other mobile uses where PDA's are just too primitive. More targeted apps for the general computing public could have more of an impact.
Ink might be great, but if PC users don't see it, it really doesn't matter.
I disagree. Customers want solutions. They think MS is the only game in town, so they'll go with it, but they don't necessarily seek it out. I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard someone say "Golly, if it's not MS, I won't buy it." Consumers have wizened up a bit.
Well, all I can say is that business has almost demanded that Palm come out with a Windows phone. Even though most every review over the years has said that Palms software sycn'd up to MS's better that MS's own PDA software, buisness people don't understand tha, and don't seem to care. They THINK that MS's solutions work better.
True. However. The original comparison was MSLife to iLife, not MSLife to other Windows products, correct? So I'm not seeing how the money issue holds at this point. They're not taking on an OSS group, or a small developer, they're going to have to convince people who are considering purchasing a Mac, even to run Windows, that there's no reason to. That's a slightly different ballgame, IMO, because as you point out below, their v1 products generally stink. In a head-to-head comparison with iLife, they're not going to look good, is my guess.
The money issue is ALWAYS important when dealing with MS. It's thei money that allows to chug on when everyone else would have given up. If they target Apple's iLife apps, you know damn well they they will do whatever they have to. And from previous experience, I certainly think that that can be cause for worry.
I don't think it should be disregarded, but I don't think it's time to Chicken Little, either.
No, it's not. But when I see people here saying what amounts to being simply stupid, I get concerned.
I think you know which posts I'm talking about.
Originally posted by melgross
It all too often, seems as though history gets rewritten
Indeed. Your post is a good example of that. As Kickaha correctly stated, while Microsoft indeed heavily and unfairly attacked Netscape, Netscape made numerous huge management mistakes of their own. Any Netscape employee who was there at the time will confirm that to you.
Originally posted by melgross
Meanwhile, MS's server software sales increased, but apache remained number 1.
However, as an aside, MS's server has now surpassed Apache. Can you see where this is leading?
Sorry mel, you're way, way, way off there.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html
Originally posted by melgross
Well, all I can say is that business has almost demanded that Palm come out with a Windows phone. Even though most every review over the years has said that Palms software sycn'd up to MS's better that MS's own PDA software, buisness people don't understand tha, and don't seem to care. They THINK that MS's solutions work better.
That's really more Palm's fault for being so rubbish. PalmOS's design is spot on but their OS should have been replaced eons ago and they've squandered their lead whilst Microsoft slowly improved and their competitors (Psion/Symbian/Apple) got out of the PDA all together and concentrated on growing markets (Phones) instead of dead ones.
Originally posted by Kickaha
mel, I still think you're missing one critical piece in your argument:
That case, is one of MS vs. *other Windows developers*. "You already run our OS, and you already run a bunch of our software, whether you want to or not, so hey - we've got a new product, and let's see, we'll give you a better deal on the rest of it if you buy that too, 'k?"
With someone looking to purchase a Mac, even to run windows, it's because *they're already looking elsewhere*. "You're thinking of buying a Mac? Why, when our stuff is 'just as good', really. Besides you won't be able to run your old softw... oh, um, you won't be able to use your old... er... Did we mention we're 'just as good'?" If someone is looking at the Mac, they already realize that 'just as good' isn't the truth.
I don't see them as equivalent, sorry.
And that's *after* all this ball of wax (and Vista!) comes out. What, another 9-12 months?
You're assuming that these people all want to move over already. That's one thing. But people will only want to move over if they have a pretty good reason to.
If a big reason is because they've heard of iLife, but have never seen it. A very likely case, the your argument doesn't apply. And those are the people I'm talking about.
Don't forget that it's a BIG deal to move over. Most people are hesitant, and it won't take much to make them stay.
Obviously, that doesn't mean everyone.
But, as it was pointed in a column somewhere recently, it just takes a very small amount of Windows switchers to make a big difference to Apple. If even some of those possible switchers don't, then is will mean significant numbers for Apple, while meaning little to MS.
But it would be a political victory.
Originally posted by melgross
But it would be a political victory.
I think you meant to say 'profitable', not 'political'.
Originally posted by Chucker
Indeed. Your post is a good example of that. As Kickaha correctly stated, while Microsoft indeed heavily and unfairly attacked Netscape, Netscape made numerous huge management mistakes of their own. Any Netscape employee who was there at the time will confirm that to you.
I'm pretty familiar with the history. It isn't wrong. I had a big stake in it at one time.
Netscape's management problems started after MS dropped the ball on them. Until then, they were doing fine
The disarray I mentioned came when the stock had dropped to almost nothing, and the money was almost all gone.
I'll tell you what Netscapes big mistake was.
It was the idea of an open internet. The one we have now, with standards that most everyone can use.
If Netscape, with almost a 98% marketshare, decided to not make its features available to every person, and company, who wrote a browser, then they would still have 98% marketshare.
But, they didn't, and MS was able to piggyback on their work.
Sure, I know that disgruntled employees, whose stock options disappeared in a puff of smoke had a lot to say. Some of it was true, some wasn't.
But, make no mistake about it. It was MS that bulled their way through. Netscape was a small fish whose pond MS drained.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]Sorry mel, you're way, way, way off there.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html
I'm just going by numbers I read recently. It's been moving that way for years.
I'm familliar with that survey. But, what it doesn't show is that among the largest corporate servers, MS's product has moved past Apache, and that has been moving downscale. Most new installs of apache are small users who can't afford other products.
I should have clarified
That's really more Palm's fault for being so rubbish. PalmOS's design is spot on but their OS should have been replaced eons ago and they've squandered their lead whilst Microsoft slowly improved and their competitors (Psion/Symbian/Apple) got out of the PDA all together and concentrated on growing markets (Phones) instead of dead ones.
Palm has the same problem everyone else has. It's tough going up against a company who, despite inferior products, continues to pick up marketshare.
Management has a difficult time deciding what part of the monolith to attack. Cobalt, which I saw, was very good, and would have competed on the high end, but the products needed to run it would have been too expensive. So, Palm is forced into incremental upgrades of an aging code base.
Originally posted by melgross
I'll tell you what Netscapes big mistake was.
It was the idea of an open internet. The one we have now, with standards that most everyone can use.
Excuse me? Netscape? Standards? You mean the Netscape that kept W3C from releasing HTML 3.0 and instead created a wholly different HTML 3.2 with features that were never intended for HTML, a mess that we still have to deal with today? The Netscape that came up with such quixotic nonsense as the blink tag? Or the Netscape that renamed LiveScript to JavaScript just to bathe in Sun's marketing hype?
Originally posted by Kickaha
I think you meant to say 'profitable', not 'political'.
No, I mean political.
By that, I mean that even though MS would have kept only a small part of their userbase, the fact of having competed directly with Apple, where it's at its best, would be a political victory. Little profits would be involved, but the publicity would not.
Mind you, I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just covering the bases here.
Unfortunately, I have a meeting at my daughter's school, so I'll see you all later tonight.
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Agreed. Competition against Apples major consumer flagship, would be welcomed!
Yea, like competition against MS and Windoze would be a good thing too. Oh, but then Gates wouldn't be the richest man in the world
Originally posted by melgross
Palm has the same problem everyone else has. It's tough going up against a company who, despite inferior products, continues to pick up marketshare.
Um, I'm going to have to disagree with this too - I haven't been impressed with anything Palm has put out since they started. It was a brain-dead device in the beginning, and as you say, they've only put on incremental upgrades since.
While I don't like PocketPC *either*, for entirely different reasons, it has the kitchen-sink approach that MS is known for, *and* 'strong' (quasi-) links to their flagship apps like Office.
If I was in the market for a handheld, I'd have to say that PocketPC is, actually, a better product for most people, scary as that is.
And if you knew how much I can't stand PocketPC, you'd know how little I think of Palm's offerings...
Again, Palm has kinda buried themselves in this one.
Make no mistake, MS will force other companies' hands, and capitalize on *any* misstep... but Netscape and Palm both have made some tremendous blunders. (Apple too, historically, which is why we're in this Windows mess of a world to begin with.)
Originally posted by melgross
I'm just going by numbers I read recently. It's been moving that way for years.
I'm familliar with that survey. But, what it doesn't show is that among the largest corporate servers, MS's product has moved past Apache, and that has been moving downscale. Most new installs of apache are small users who can't afford other products.
I should have clarified
Hmmm. I'd appreciate proof of that statement. There's a 30 million domain gap between Apache and IIS. I don't doubt that more corporates are hosting on IIS servers because of .net and other Microsoft solutions but I find it hard to believe Netcraft have their figures off by that kind of margin.
Originally posted by melgross
Management has a difficult time deciding what part of the monolith to attack. Cobalt, which I saw, was very good, and would have competed on the high end, but the products needed to run it would have been too expensive. So, Palm is forced into incremental upgrades of an aging code base.
Hmmm. I don't believe that one either.
WinCE places a much higher demand on hardware than Cobalt and now they've gone for Linux - still higher than Cobalt. Plus they've still not even used Cobalt on the few high end models they did do.
If they wanted to still have low end models then they still had the old PalmOS there where Microsoft can't compete at all.
Management was definitely the problem as technically they had it right. However, I think they moved too slowly. The market moved to phones from PDAs and both Microsoft and Palm have been out manoeuvred by Symbian. That will become more obvious in the next year as single chip cheap phones running Symbian ship. Microsoft and Palm are years off.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Um, I'm going to have to disagree with this too - I haven't been impressed with anything Palm has put out since they started. It was a brain-dead device in the beginning, and as you say, they've only put on incremental upgrades since.
While I don't like PocketPC *either*, for entirely different reasons, it has the kitchen-sink approach that MS is known for, *and* 'strong' (quasi-) links to their flagship apps like Office.
If I was in the market for a handheld, I'd have to say that PocketPC is, actually, a better product for most people, scary as that is.
And if you knew how much I can't stand PocketPC, you'd know how little I think of Palm's offerings...
Again, Palm has kinda buried themselves in this one.
Make no mistake, MS will force other companies' hands, and capitalize on *any* misstep... but Netscape and Palm both have made some tremendous blunders. (Apple too, historically, which is why we're in this Windows mess of a world to begin with.)
Ok, this a matter of personal preference. we can't butt heads over this. I can just lead to to take a look at the reviews of Palm's Treo with Palm's OS vs MS's OS.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Hmmm. I'd appreciate proof of that statement. There's a 30 million domain gap between Apache and IIS. I don't doubt that more corporates are hosting on IIS servers because of .net and other Microsoft solutions but I find it hard to believe Netcraft have their figures off by that kind of margin.
I'll try to find some date. I'm not saying that their numbers are off. I'm just saying that in the larger corporate world, IIS has gone ahead. You don't disagree with that.