🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5davp9$3...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
 <gmar...@primenet.com> wrote:
>sew...@netcom.ca (John Savard) wrote:
>
>>Iain Wilkie Logan <iain...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>>>Or VHS versus Betamax - a case of a
>>>poorer technology becoming predominant, which is relatively unusual. Perhaps
>>>it was a victory by 'marketing' over 'product worth'.
>
>>VHS was not tecnically more elegant. But it was superior in terms of
>>what the consumer valued even before it became 'the standard'.
>
>Thus, the original poster was correct; i.e. VHS, the "poorer
>technology," is "not technically more elegant." 
>
>Yes, it delivered what the consumer wanted, but that does not refute
>the point that it was technically inferior.  Windows is clearly
>technically inferior, yet it apparently gives (most) consumers what
>they want. 
>

I always find it amusing when people throw the terms 'good', 'bad', and
'the best' around without qualifying them. MS bashers like to say 'XXX is
better than Win95', but what do they mean by that? Technically better.
 
But what does that mean? a Technically good design is only ONE aspect of
any good product, be it computer software or anything else. You have to
balance all the other Real world factors in, something which MS balances
VERY WELL, and still seems to have a ton of cash left over for marketing. 
 
Of course, for Technical Elegance one only needs to look as far as 
Windows NT, which , IMO is an incredible acheivement technically speaking.
The ability to completely REWRITE an OS using a fundamentally different
underlying model (vs Windows 3.1) and have it as compatable as it is 
is really amazing. 
 
Andy K.