[Lancaster] [Fwd: Re: Twitter]

[Richard Robinson]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:03:19AM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> Richard Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:46:25AM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> >> Would we have the internet playing such a large role in the world today 
> >> without there having been such a dominant player in the computer market? 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > Until Microsoft (finally) heard the news, providers were coming up with
> > 3rd-party software. Demon, in this country (I don't know the details of
> > other countries) had been experiencing exponential growth for years by the
> > time it was possible to access it with anything Microsoft provided.
> 
> Really? Because my memory is that operating systems at the time didn't 
> provide TCP/IP stacks and an after market addition was required.

That's right. When I first got a connection with Demon, they were providing
their own home-brewed cli software, since DOS had no support for it. And
later, I think they had some role in developing Windows-based stuff, running
over, mostky, Peter Tattam's Trumpet Winsock. Shareware, since, again, there
was no native support.

You had to insert a floppy disk, and type 'install' by hand. The horror !
Tell the youth of today that and ...<etc>


> It's not that Microsoft provided the TCP/IP stack, it was that it's 
> dominant position made it financially and technically viable to give 
> away a TCP/IP stack on a cheap medium that would work on the vast 
> majority of PCs that people had in there homes.

And, _eventually_, Microsoft started doing that. Sure. And if the point is
that no-one else was in a position to have done it, isn't that a bit of a
circular argument ?


> > It was the connectivity that was available, people were selling it, lots of
> > people wanted it.
> 
> There are probably always enthusiastic early adopters, just like there 
> were with Sony's Minidisc and Toshiba's HD-DVD. By 1996, I'd agree, lots 
> of people wanted it, but it had already made it passed the early adopter 
> stage by then - it probably made it passed that stage before there was a 
> single consumer ISP in the UK.
> 
> > The Internet _worked_, years before Microsoft payed it any attention at all.
> > People wanted it. Microsoft have nothing whatsoever to do with that.
> 
> Ah, but my point wasn't that Microsoft supported it. My point is that 
> the largely homogeneous install base that Microsoft had created by 
> trying to put a Microsoft powered computer on a desk in every home made 
> it possible to provide the software required as part of a marketing 
> dump. Floppy disks with the Microsoft compatible software were mass 
> posted through doors, stuck on many magazines and freely available on 
> little stands in shops. This would have been *much* harder to achieve 
> had the home computer market been highly fragmented.

<straight face>
It would certainly have been harder for anyone else to distribute floppy
disks with the Microsoft logo on, yes.
</straight face>

I think I can't see why you think this is a point worth making. ISTM that -
lots of people wanted internet access, the dominant software vendor finally
stopped telling them it wasn't worth it, etc etc, and figured out a way to
take money for them in exchange for it. And if enough people ask a pub for a
pint of beer the landlord will eventually, probably, decide to get some in.

The internet would be _different_, by now, had they sat back and let all
those lovely customers go to someone else for their TCP/IP support. Less
buggy, maybe. Less consumer-oriented, possibly, though I suspect not.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem