🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Dickson <Mike@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <433hn9$m0s@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>           dpg1001@cam.ac.uk "Duncan Grisby" writes:

>> But why did people develop for the PC at all?  There were much
>> better alternatives available

>I agree, but the IBM PC had other benefits, mostly the open architectural
>design and their (relative) inexpense. Like most things, I think it was
>half by accident. If we knew then what we know now then how different
>would things be?

Not much different.  The PC preceded the MAC and at the time was more
advanced than the Apple computer.  It was priced higher than any
Apple, Amiga, Atari or Radio Shack computer, but had appeal for
business.  It also was cloneable -- something the other computer
manufacturers would not allow.  The clone makers were able to drive
the price of the IB style PC into the home market arena.  The
perripheral builders, no longer restricted by disparate architectures
and computer makers restrictions jumped in and the tidal wave began.
It soon became apparent the best deal for the buck was a PC clone.
Sure the Amiga had good graphics, (some people bought them for that)
and the new Mac had a easier to use interface ( some people bought
them for that), but the Mac had competition from lower priced Ataris
and Amigas which had GUIs also.  The best all around
price/performance/feature compromise was the PC clone.  When Microsoft
introduced Windows the PC had it's GUI and it became easier to use.
The rest is and will be history...  ( I'm not saying the PC is better
than the MAC, I'm saying Apple made some critical mistakes and is
paying for them now... )