🚀 go-pugleaf

jjs@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) wrote:


>And speaking of copying, what do you think microsoft has been doing?
>You essentially could have had win95 10 years ago if you had just 
>bought a mac - so why are all the trade rags in such an ecstatic
>orgy over win95?

Because it's for the computer with the far larger market share.

And are magazines really in an "ecstatic orgy"?  I really wonder when
95 naysayers spout this.  Both Windows Sources and PC World have been
quite honest and critical of 95.  You see a big "95" on the cover-
what do you expect?  But it doesn't mean they're not objective.

And no, I couldn't have had Windows 95 10 years ago with the Mac.
Let's ignore the Macs awful memory protection and multitasking
(non-existant 10 years ago), but the fact is the Mac was also 3 times
the price of a comparable PC clone.  Most people couldn't afford a
decent Mac system.  So we took out lumps with Windows 3.1, which
wasn't that bad considering how much I had to pay for my 486 in
comparison with a slower 030 Mac at the time.