Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Saying don't make it so, pal.
> 
>     Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
> formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
> your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
> be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
> written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
> Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
> technology.

I think there is a point to be clarified here.

Most software is not written "for Windows". This implies choice of the
basis of merit, when no such choice is made. Programmers don't generally
sit down and say, "gee, Windows beats the hell out of everything else, I
think I'll write software for it". Likewise, companies don't generally
say, "hey, we just really happen to LIKE Microsoft".. unless, of course,
they're coerced by monopoly power. ;P

The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
platform.. which is to say, the largest. Ignoring the fact that the
different flavors of Windows tend to have all sorts of funny software
incompatibilities, this largest platform would be Windows.. but it could
just as easily be Macintosh, or Linux, or anything else, because the
software development has absolutely nothing to do with the platform itself.

Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
programs". They make their systems play native programs. The only
exception I can think of is people who run Windows in emulation.. which
tells me that those people are being given no choice as to whether to
run Windows or not, but are so opposed to using it as their native OS
that they would rather take a performance hit than switch platforms.

And, as a matter of fact, there's plenty of Windows-only software that a
lot of non-Windows users simply couldn't care less about. I don't need a
Windows text editor or a Windows FTP client; I have Mac-only versions
which I think are equal or superior to similar software available for Windows.

The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal.. not the neurotic
interface nightmare from Redmond. Powerful use of new technology? This
could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.

Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its competitors.

I submit that there is no standard.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message