On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Steve Thatcher wrote:
> the only reason Microsoft would not add binary transfer capability as an
> integral part of early DOS is that the people that needed it were in a
> small minority. It made no business sense to include features that they
> believed that most people really didn't need. Later in DOS, they did
What? It seems to me they had to do more programming work to prevent
binary copying to the serial port.
> include a basic file transfer capability over a cable. Probably more out
> of pressure because people used products like LapLink and complained
> that they had to buy something instead of having it built in. It was
Actually, it was because Laplink showed there was a market for such a
product, and in true MS style they probably tried to buy LL, were
rebuffed, and then came up with their own (inferior) built-in version to
try to suck the life out of Traveling Software and make them go bankrupt.
It didn't work in this (rare) case.
> I have long held the concept that Microsoft has always been a 90%
> solution and the remaining 10% are the opportunities for outside
> companies.
More like 10% original work and 90% acquisitions/destruction-by-co-optation
of other companies.
(I sense the possibility of another thread of MS bashing coming on...)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Thu Jan 06 2005 - 14:05:23 GMT