Microsoft Office turns 30 Years: Why it landed on Mac before Windows
-
-
Poorly researched article. For example:
At the time, Mac was the dominant development platform
Hardly.
There’s also no denying that at the time Mac was the leading desktop platform, at least amongst the business customers who would be purchasing Office.
Not even close. It was exactly what Gates said--a platform where failure would have no business impact. The other problem was that Windows 2.11 wasn't very good. (Mac System 5 and 6 weren't all that great either and the hardware was horrible, but they were better than Windows 2.) (On the other hand, the second I saw Windows 3.0 running [in beta] I knew that was the future and immediately bought Petzold's book. I late read the Microsoft Windows SDK three book set from cover to cover. Those ended up being more important the Petzold.)
-
Poorly researched article. For example:
At the time, Mac was the dominant development platform
Hardly.
There’s also no denying that at the time Mac was the leading desktop platform, at least amongst the business customers who would be purchasing Office.
Not even close. It was exactly what Gates said--a platform where failure would have no business impact. The other problem was that Windows 2.11 wasn't very good. (Mac System 5 and 6 weren't all that great either and the hardware was horrible, but they were better than Windows 2.) (On the other hand, the second I saw Windows 3.0 running [in beta] I knew that was the future and immediately bought Petzold's book. I late read the Microsoft Windows SDK three book set from cover to cover. Those ended up being more important the Petzold.)
As I recall, Windows really didn't take off until v3.1. When networking was integrated in 3.11 it became very popular with businesses.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
As I recall, Windows really didn't take off until v3.1. When networking was integrated in 3.11 it became very popular with businesses.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Windows 3.1 was an incremental, though significant, improvement over Windows 3.0 and sold nearly as many copies in three months that 3.0 sold in a year. Windows 95 was the one which shattered sales records. I think it was mostly about the hardware. (Not just capability, but depreciation schedules.) (And if all you used was Lotus and WordPerfect, DOS worked.)
-
Windows 3.1 was an incremental, though significant, improvement over Windows 3.0 and sold nearly as many copies in three months that 3.0 sold in a year. Windows 95 was the one which shattered sales records. I think it was mostly about the hardware. (Not just capability, but depreciation schedules.) (And if all you used was Lotus and WordPerfect, DOS worked.)
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version. The Pentium had been released a little while earlier and with W95 people could finally run 32-bit code and use all that RAM they had been buying. Those two together really drove the computer industry for a while. Then 98 came along and was quite a bit better. I remember those days very well. I had been using NT instead of 98 because we used it for our business (automation systems software). It was pretty good and then 2000 came along and then XP. We skipped Vista and went to W7. The level of improvement with those was just amazing and then, ... I'll stop right there and forgo the usual rant that follows.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version. The Pentium had been released a little while earlier and with W95 people could finally run 32-bit code and use all that RAM they had been buying. Those two together really drove the computer industry for a while. Then 98 came along and was quite a bit better. I remember those days very well. I had been using NT instead of 98 because we used it for our business (automation systems software). It was pretty good and then 2000 came along and then XP. We skipped Vista and went to W7. The level of improvement with those was just amazing and then, ... I'll stop right there and forgo the usual rant that follows.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Rick York wrote:
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version.
Not quite correct; Windows NT 3.1 predated it. However, lack of drivers for common hardware and lack of 32-bit programs crippled it in the marketplace.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Rick York wrote:
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version.
Not quite correct; Windows NT 3.1 predated it. However, lack of drivers for common hardware and lack of 32-bit programs crippled it in the marketplace.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
That was the genius of Windows 95 to my mind, by getting the masses on a 32-bit system, it ensured apps were written for that system, allowing for a smooth transition to NT technology with Windows 2000 and XP.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
Rick York wrote:
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version.
Not quite correct; Windows NT 3.1 predated it. However, lack of drivers for common hardware and lack of 32-bit programs crippled it in the marketplace.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Yes, I am aware of NT because I've used it since it was in beta. I didn't include it because it was not marketed toward consumers. It was much more of a workstation and server OS while 95 and 98 were the consumer versions.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
WinBuzzer wrote:
I am currently writing this article on Microsoft Word on a Windows PC. I could pause my writing now, head to the coffee shop, and finish this piece on my Android smartphone while sipping a latte.
... Then forget my phone in the coffee shop, thereby giving full access to all of my company's documents to whoever picks it up. Does anyone even think, when they propose stupid ideas like this? It used to be that you had to infiltrate a building, to steal information. Networks made it a little easier, because you didn't have to be in the building. But now all you have to do is hit someone over the head with a baseball bat and take his phone, so not only is all the company's information ridiculously insecure, but almost every employee has become a target for violent criminals. Here's a tip: If you think of a "COOL!" feature, run it past a few pragmatists, before you rush off and implement it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!