4 ms·

Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. Consumers wouldn't know which p

Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. Consumers wouldn't know which platform to buy to run program X, and when that platform goes away, how will they keep mission critical program Y. Two or three major OSes is more than enough of a headache for software companies and consumers alike. The world may be more interesting, but I have a feeling we would be at least 10-20 years behind where we are now with computing.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
>Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. I wonder whether cross-platform frameworks like Java on the desktop would have enjoyed more uptake were that the case.
jcl 17y ago
Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. Consumers wouldn't know which platform to buy to run program X, and when that platform goes away, how will they keep mission critical program Y. You are describing network effects. In a hypothetical world where there are no network effects, there is no benefit to picking the most popular option -- precluding the need to standardize or pick winners. In the case of operating systems, this means you need to assume it is trivial for users and vendors to move between competitors. (For something closer to this ideal, think of JVMs or x86 chips.)
rbanffy 17y ago
I distinctively remember customers in the mid-80's knew what software was available to the computer platform they chose to use. They used to base their choices on that. Machine-readable data exchange was not as important as it is today, but market pressures would, probably, influence software writers to both write more portable software (in order to sell to larger markets) and to use interchangeable data formats (something educated customers would see as added value). The whole idea of "major software vendors" would also be very different, as the market would be much more fragmented. And no. We wouldn't be behind what we have today. We still have files in folders, windows and mice. The coolest OSs available today are flavors of Unix and a rehash of VMS with roots on a rehash of CP/M. Most Windows users still believe files must have a 3-letter suffix. Windows users still endure drive letters. Unix users frequently endure differences between local and remote files. Most computers have two processors and most programs can't figure out what to do with one of them. No. We have had pretty little progress during this period. We had more of the same - faster boxes with more storage, more colors, more pixels and more GFLOPS doing more or less what we used to do in the mid-80's and 90's. It's really hard to imagine an environment that would result in even less progress.
- ryanpetrich 17y ago
  In the 80's, Grandma didn't have a computer in her basement. Still, you make very good points.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    In the 80's, Grandma would have no use for a computer. She owns one now because she can use it for something.
- assemble 17y ago
  Consumers of computers in the mid-80s didn't consist of nearly the range and variety of consumers as it does now. The people who had computers in the 80s were computer geeks and engineers. What we have accomplished in the last 20 years is the mainstream acceptance of computers. We have managed to get users familiar enough with them that they are comfortable doing things. My grandparents no longer feel that they have to call me when they go to the store and buy a computer. They can get their email working without having to call me. They can upload their pictures and edit the documents without many issues. Yes, there are still files and folders--but honestly: what is wrong with that? It fits how most people think. I can't name a single person I know who has a problem understanding the concept of folders and files on their computer. People don't -need- their desktop machines to do much more than they did in the 80s. And what people actually do has been streamlined and made easier. (And one could argue significant progress has been made, for example: entire airplanes are designed on computer before ever being built now. That was impossible in the 80s.) The other stuff such as suffixes, drive letters, etc: I agree.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    > The people who had computers in the 80s were computer geeks and engineers Computer geeks are not super-smart. It's wrong to assume they can master something other people can't. Most people didn't have computers not because they were too complicated but because they weren't useful enough. A diverse ecosystem of useful computers would attract as a diverse user base as we have now, perhaps more, if we accounted for a more diverse set of available computer platforms. What's wrong with files? What's wrong with clicking a button with a floppy on it to save a document to a network-mounted disk array? My son never used a floppy to store his data on. He never owned a floppy. And he's 14.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

>Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. I wonder whether cross-platform frameworks like Java on the desktop would have enjoyed more uptake were that the case.

jcl 17y ago

Major software vendors would never have had a platform to standardize on, so they would have to try and pick a winner and loser. Consumers wouldn't know which platform to buy to run program X, and when that platform goes away, how will they keep mission critical program Y. You are describing network effects. In a hypothetical world where there are no network effects, there is no benefit to picking the most popular option -- precluding the need to standardize or pick winners. In the case of operating systems, this means you need to assume it is trivial for users and vendors to move between competitors. (For something closer to this ideal, think of JVMs or x86 chips.)

rbanffy 17y ago

I distinctively remember customers in the mid-80's knew what software was available to the computer platform they chose to use. They used to base their choices on that. Machine-readable data exchange was not as important as it is today, but market pressures would, probably, influence software writers to both write more portable software (in order to sell to larger markets) and to use interchangeable data formats (something educated customers would see as added value). The whole idea of "major software vendors" would also be very different, as the market would be much more fragmented. And no. We wouldn't be behind what we have today. We still have files in folders, windows and mice. The coolest OSs available today are flavors of Unix and a rehash of VMS with roots on a rehash of CP/M. Most Windows users still believe files must have a 3-letter suffix. Windows users still endure drive letters. Unix users frequently endure differences between local and remote files. Most computers have two processors and most programs can't figure out what to do with one of them. No. We have had pretty little progress during this period. We had more of the same - faster boxes with more storage, more colors, more pixels and more GFLOPS doing more or less what we used to do in the mid-80's and 90's. It's really hard to imagine an environment that would result in even less progress.

ryanpetrich 17y ago
In the 80's, Grandma didn't have a computer in her basement. Still, you make very good points.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  In the 80's, Grandma would have no use for a computer. She owns one now because she can use it for something.
assemble 17y ago
Consumers of computers in the mid-80s didn't consist of nearly the range and variety of consumers as it does now. The people who had computers in the 80s were computer geeks and engineers. What we have accomplished in the last 20 years is the mainstream acceptance of computers. We have managed to get users familiar enough with them that they are comfortable doing things. My grandparents no longer feel that they have to call me when they go to the store and buy a computer. They can get their email working without having to call me. They can upload their pictures and edit the documents without many issues. Yes, there are still files and folders--but honestly: what is wrong with that? It fits how most people think. I can't name a single person I know who has a problem understanding the concept of folders and files on their computer. People don't -need- their desktop machines to do much more than they did in the 80s. And what people actually do has been streamlined and made easier. (And one could argue significant progress has been made, for example: entire airplanes are designed on computer before ever being built now. That was impossible in the 80s.) The other stuff such as suffixes, drive letters, etc: I agree.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  > The people who had computers in the 80s were computer geeks and engineers Computer geeks are not super-smart. It's wrong to assume they can master something other people can't. Most people didn't have computers not because they were too complicated but because they weren't useful enough. A diverse ecosystem of useful computers would attract as a diverse user base as we have now, perhaps more, if we accounted for a more diverse set of available computer platforms. What's wrong with files? What's wrong with clicking a button with a floppy on it to save a document to a network-mounted disk array? My son never used a floppy to store his data on. He never owned a floppy. And he's 14.