[Lancaster] [Fwd: Re: Twitter]

[Richard Robinson]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:42:52PM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> No you've missed my point.
>
> My point is that the large homogeneous installation base in consumers  
> homes allowed *others* (i.e. not Microsoft) to distribute a compatible  
> TCP/IP stack to a very large market easily - not something that would  
> have been possible without the large homogeneous installation base, thus  
> in this case, not possible without Microsoft's push to get a Microsoft  
> powered PC in every home.

Like, Demon provided their Dos-based dis.exe because a lot of their
potential customers were running on DOS. Sure.

But, I dunno. If the market had been all fragmented, presumably each of those
fragments would have had companies making a living out of providing software
for that base ? I just think that, to the extent that whatever machines
people were running were supported by software industries, those industries
would have provided an internet connection becasue people really wanted to
buy one. Or, indeed, by 'free' non-industries - I remember a brief period
when people with 'net conections were making a living by redistributing
shareware from the FTP sites. I bought several disks from such a company in
Lancaster, circa '91, '92. Can't now remember a thing about who they were.

(One could also point out that those niche fragments that were running Unices,
would have found that they didn't need anything extra).


>> 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.

(Badly phrased. I meant 'virus-ridden')

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