Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
> > to meet or exceed.
> 
> Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3.  If the latter
> hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
> using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
> that comes with them.

	And the rest of the world says it was Visicalc for the Apple II and
Lotus ate their lunch when "windows" were no more than an embedded
feature of the 8086 chip that was used for TSR (Terminate and Stay
Resident) programs. They were only ascii subsets of a full screen but
they were called windows and activated by hot keys. 

	Atari commissioned the adaptation of Visicalc for its 400/800 line and
it was sold for $US199 plus tax. That is where I first encountered it. I
can assure you the 6502 did not know from even the ascii window of the
8086 and that was all before IBM adopted the stupid chip and the equally
stupid CP/M knockoff OS. 

	Atari's OS was doubly indirect which made it extensible to the limits
of available RAM unlike certain other OSs I could name. 

> Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
> of its product, except maybe sales.

	Other graphics products don't even charge for it. 

-- 
Here is the rule and read it clear, only the US government can 
invoke god and no one else can. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 167

Post a reply to this message