 |
 |
At 06:35 AM 9/10/97 -0400, Janet Paterson posted an article written by ANATOLE KALETSKY called "Snakeoil, software and Gates". In this article he made a number of statements to which I would like to respond with my own comments. Before I do, I will say that I do as much "Bill bashing" as most people. He is an easy target. He founded a business, Microsoft, that has made him the richest person in the world. If people did not like his products, people would not buy them. Anyone try to use a non-Windows product for their major computer needs? I have; it sucks. Anyone try to use one of the non-Windows word processing programs? I have; they suck! Anyone still using an 8088 system, or trying to run any complex program on a Tandy 1000 or an IBM PCJr.? Without Intel or Microsoft, what would the personal computer user do? Write their own programs? That really sucks! Think about it. >...the mayhem caused by his flagship computer software, Windows 95... The development of Windows 95 has been called one of the most complex technological endeavors in the history of mankind. Microsoft pulled it off. Sure there are glitches, Anyone own a perfect car? Cars have been around a lot longer than computers. >Among the dozens of letters, there was not one from a satisfied user of >Windows or other Microsoft products. Probably because of the asinine diatribe of Mr. KALETSKY was not worth the time it would take to read it, and anyone who read it, trashed it as the crap it was. >anyone who tries to use a Windows personal computer: Why are computers so >unreliable and difficult to use? Anyone try to use an Osborne PC, an attempt by British Industry to make a computer? You may be able to find on in a museum or a scrap heap; but you won't find one in use by a serious computer user who wants a PC that works and can do something. >The short answer seemed to be that the computer industry is dominated by >two companies: Gates' Microsoft and Intel, which manufactures the microprocessors at >the heart of every PC. The software and hardware are sure not dominated by a British company. Maybe the dominance is due to the fact that Intel and Microsoft make the very best products. >By constantly changing specifications and adding technical gimmicks which use up ever >more of the PC's memory and processing power, these companies keep up the pressure on >their customers to invest in new hardware and software. The demand for technical improvements is driven by the customer and the marketplace, not the manufacturer. Anyone try to do a spread sheet without a lot of memory or on a 8088 machine? >The constant churning of computer features and technology is in the interests of the >dominant manufacturers for one all-important reason. It prevents technical standards >from stabilising, which would lead to dramatic reductions in prices. Has Mr. KALETSKY been in a time warp? In just the last 9 months, a PC buyer can get a machine with 4x the RAM, 4x the hard drive memory, and 4x the speed for less than the first PC cost. As for standards; one time the standard for computers was 16 k of memory and speed was measured in hertz, not megahertz. I'm sure Mr. KALETSKY thinks things should have stopped there!! Or maybe Mr. KALETSKY thinks we should have stopped at the vacuum tube. The reliability of the first computers was measured in hours before the computer broke down!! Or maybe progress should have stopped at the abacus! >Unfortunately technological churning also prevents improvements in reliability and >quality. See previous comments. Or maybe Mr. KALETSKY should look up the term Luddite! >Technological churning also prevents the establishment of common standards >which would make equipment compatible and allow computers to work >seamlessly together, in the way that is taken for granted when we plug in a >new television set, CD player or telephone. Mr. KALETSKY has got to be kidding! Setting standards will generally stifle technological development. Let's set the speed of an airplane at 100 mph. Using his criteria we would have no TV, no CD players, no telephone! >In sum, Microsoft and Intel have completely skewed the rules of engagement in the >computer industry: instead of competing on price, reliability and quality, they have >overwhelmed potential competitors with constantly changing gimmicks and >claims about illusory definitions of "speed" and "power." It is clearly obvious that Mr. KALETSKY does not understand why Microsoft and Intel are successful. It is exactly because they meet their customers needs of price, reliability and quality. If they have skewed any of the rules of engagement, it is by being successful. >The main reason, I think, is that most people who pay for computers -- be >they company directors, parents or head teachers -- know nothing about >information technology but think it is frightfully important. I hate to be patronized. This is from the "Big Brother knows best" school of thought. >The people who buy computers today are driven by the same combination of >ignorance, embarrassment, hope and foreboding that turned so many Americans >into hypochondriacs. This is crap from someone who still thinks the sun never sets on the British Empire. The real ignorance is Mr. KALETSKY's. His ignorance has turned him into an incompetent jerk. >Under these cirumstances, market forces can fail to perform their normal >function of bringing down prices and stabilising standards, as they failed >in American healthcare for many years. Mr. KALETSKY seems to be very bitter about the success of American companies. >Bill Gates is merely the latest and most successful in the long history of >American snakeoil salesmen. If I think really hard, I may come up with a British company that Mr. KALETSKY feels is successful. Let's see. There was the company that built the Titanic, or the Comet Airplane, or the very reliable British automobile. In closing, I hope Mr. KALETSKY's Osbourne Computer continues to perform as well as his keen understanding of what makes successful businesses. If so, we won't have to read anymore of his drivel.