3 ms·

Which clearly didn’t matter to their target market, which you didn’t represent.

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  The GP talks about NT, Mac, etc. in the context of home computers, a market which (by virtue of being ridiculously bloated) NT couldn't actually target for an entire decade (such market was then using OSes where the minimal requirement was more like 0.5MB of RAM). At the very least it is unfair to claim it was ahead of the other OSes in that market, since it literally couldn't even think of competing with them. The parent poster claimed the bloat was because of portability and other metrics, but this is also not true since other very much portable OSes from the next decade still had lesser minimum requirements. NT was not such a good design as it is often claimed. It was a clone of a esoteric big iron OS that they were trying to retrofit on much smaller devices. They had to backpedal on everything from microkernel to personalities in order to be able to actually market it to "their target market".
  • mdekkers 3y ago
    Yet despite all these shortcomings it, and its descendants, were, and continue to be, wildly commercially successful. I genuinely don’t understand all this looking down on what, in hindsight, clearly worked. NT was always marketed and priced for the professional & enterprise markets, so the whole “but what about home computers at the time” rings hollow. NT ushered in a new era of business computing and networking, and more importantly a new era of thinking about and working with technology in the workplace, something its competitors at the time couldn’t manage. Even Novell netware, dearly missed, got steamrolled by NT. You can pooh-pooh NT all you like, and talk about what a shitty clone it was, and how poor the technology was. NT clearly won, at the time.