"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", 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. 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.

> 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.

> The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
> of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal

    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. The best thing about Windows
is that because it is such a widespread standard, if you need a little help
with your computer, you can go right next door and ask your neighbor or go
down to almost any computer, software or office store and get some free
advice.

> Powerful use of new technology? This
> could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.

    Now that -is- rediculous. You not being able to see what it means does
not negate it's meaning. As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and
all the voice tech stuff is written for windows. And before you start up,
yes, other OS's address some new technology too. That does not detract from
the fact that Windows does too.

> 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.

    The "standard" is not declared, it develops. I had a Renault once and
people used to jibe me about my boxy little car, then I let a couple of
friends drive it and the response was very gratifying. They all said how
nice it was to drive. One of them made a telling point. He said, "Well it is
not as nice as a BMW or a Mercedes." I agreed and said that at least he was
not comparing it to a Ford Pinto. Standards.

> I submit that there is no standard.

    Well, those who walk into a computer store and just -assume- that a
computer has and will run Windows will probably disagree with you. Perhaps
you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard". Neither I nor
most people would claim that it is the -only- or even the -best- standard,
but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
to meet or exceed.

Post a reply to this message