Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Most software is not written "for Windows".
> ><snip>
> > The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> > platform..
> 
>     Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows",

"I can write programs for the largest platform." Or, "I can write
programs for my own computer." I doubt that they choose Windows for any
reason which is inherent to the platform, and my point stands.

> looking
> at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> programming for Windows.

Don't even get me started on shelf space.

> Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
> written for windows and some of them are ported to other OS's only after
> months of popular use in Windows.

Reread what you quoted above until you grasp its simple meaning.

> > Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
> > programs".
> 
>     Yes, they do. Perhaps most of the scrambling was done before you started
> using computers, but I remember how many people came into my store asking
> for a way to make Mac play Windows programs. There was a -huge- scramble
> when it became possible.

And how many people scrambled for a Mac-like GUI in 1995? If you want to
talk about the past, you can, but I don't see how it's relevant.

>     I did say that other OS's have some of the same benefits, just because
> Mac is easy to use doesn't mean Winows is not.

No. But compared to a Mac, it isn't.

> > Powerful use of new technology? This
> > could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
> 
> As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and

Well, Linux is funny that way. Someone's probably working on a driver; I
wouldn't know, or particularly care.

> all the voice tech stuff is written for windows.

Somehow, I don't think so. Of course, I would have to know what you mean
by "voice tech stuff".

The Mac has voice synthesis, the ability to be controlled partly through
spoken commands, dictation software, and (with OS 9) voice security.
Obviously, you must not mean any of those, since they were not written
for Windows (although Windows does have native versions of at least some
of those kinds of software).

How much of this "written for Windows" voice tech is actually part of
Windows, and how much of it is third-party? You could hardly claim that
Windows makes powerful use of third-party technology; on the contrary,
it would be the other way around.

> Perhaps
> you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard".

Perhaps.. so let me be specific.

There is no platform standard such that a person or company should feel
justified in creating software/hardware/whatever only for that platform
on the basis that non-compliant platforms are "broken" or "wrong".

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message