Re: Hey Everyone: Here's how Gates REALLY beat Lotus

["Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>]

  On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 14:51:40 -0500 (EST), Jeffrey Fox wrote:
  
  >
  >
  >In response to Charles Kelly's remarks below...Microsoft did NOT beat Lotus,
  >WordPerfect, Borland, Etc. through superior products or stamina. In 1988,
  >this misled all developers including those companies into believing MS was
  >supporting IBM's new operating system, then known as OS/2-Presentation Manager.
  >I personally saw Bill Gates speak at a NYC school in '88, at which meeting
  >he promoted the value of the new OS.
  >
  >After they suckered their competitors into developing products for OS/2, MS
  >split with IBM and developed their own, Windows 3.0. In 1990, when Windows 3.0
  >was forced upon all hardware manufacturers as a condition of bundling MS-DOS
  >(sound familiar, Netscape?), there was only one serious Windows word
  >processer and one serious spreadsheet: MS Word and Ms Excel. You couldn't
  >buy 1-2-3, WordPerfect, or DBASe for Windows.
  >
  >It was years before Lotus and WordPerfect were able to redirect their R&D,
  >during which time Microsoft captured the market share they
  >had never been able to capture in *FAIR* competition under MS-DOS. Only when
  >they tricked their competitiors, and double-crossed their
  >partner IBM, and threatened their hardware pals were they able to get the
  >market share.
  >
  >Yes, Mr. Kelly, that's the sad truth. I was in the software indsutry back
  >then and I know. (My company was called Fox & Geller).
  >Perhaps others who remember that period will confirm my account.
  >
  >The following account by Mr. Kelly is pure BS:
  >>
  >>Microsoft has faced stiff competition in every niche of the computer
  >industry. The list is long -- OS/2 was/is technically superior to
  >Windows/Windows NT, WordPerfect was vastly superior to Word, Lotus 1-2-3 was
  >vastly superior to Excel, dBase was huge before Access was even conceived,
  >and on and on...
  >
  
  Thank you Mr Fox!  That is an inspiring piece of history, however limited.
  
  However, it is *not* the current *zeitgeist* of what I understand this list, 
  or forum, is focussed on.  Microsoft has now come full circle in your context,
  to be sure, but now abuses competition by way of stifling technical advances 
  in the industry.
  
  Microsoft does not know everything.  Nor are they good citizens in the 
  market.
  
  My understanding of what is at hand as I write this, with Microsoft, is the 
  overwhelming advantage, and likely abuse, that Microsoft wields, not just 
  for their Channel Partners, but ultimate CHOICE for everyone.  I may
  totally be wrong here, but I think that that is the considered opinion of 
  the DOJ.
  
  I say that this impending loss of CHOICE is the central issue, today, and 
  it has become seriously diminished since those histories that you quote.
  
  Superior this, and superior that, in your context, are yesteryear's road apples.
  That's what I see today, historically.  At least, try to compare your history with 
  automobiles, please.