|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
Two specific points here.
One - much of the "new features" set was not new. It was already
implemented on WP for DOS and other platforms. You don't "have to have
Win95 anyway" because the features previously existed. They were just
brought to the pretty GUI platform.
Two - the "other window manager OS platforms" is, again, a red
herring. WP already had an advanced file management dialog in every platform
that WP ran on. Novell wanted to keep equivalent functionality in the new
version. However, you say that that's not self-evident - they must prove that
desire by having succeeded on some other OS. OK, what OS would be satisfactory
as proof? Unix? Already there. DOS? Already there. Oh, sorry, that's not a
"window manager OS". Ok, what else? Do you, and Judge Motz, not
remember that there was a distinct shortage of "window manager OS"s?
In fact, a certain company had a monopoly in that area? Shall we hold the level
of proof to be that these features were implemented in WP for Win98? That would
be both outside the relevant time period, and putting that up as the burden of
proof would reward Microsoft for having successfully killed WP prior to 98.
And it's irrelevant. The question is the ability to put these features on the
dominant OS at the time.
If you started a marathon, and then got mugged in the 24th mile, how would you
prove you had intended to complete the marathon? I won't accept performance in
past marathons as indicative, and you're too injured to run any more marathons,
so there's really nothing to indicate that the mugging damaged you in any way,
right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
