philski wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Leon wrote:


"Clif" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

I know they work fine, they are GREAT and unparalleled when it comes to
graphics and that has never been a question, it just that I find it
incrediblyt difficult to believe that they do not have MORE Software
like the PC's.


Let me make it easier for you to understand why there is not more
software for the older Apples and basically why Apple bassicly failed.


If 8 billion dollars a year is "failure".


Apple was stingy in the beginning years and insisted that they would be
the
only ones to sell software or peripherals for the Apple computer. Since
IBM did not discourage other makers of computers and software writers to
make software for their style computers the PC naturally flourished.


Except that the CP/M community was even more open and IBM killed them
dead. Is _any_ company that started out making CP/M machines still in
business?

IBM was successful mainly because of brand recognition, not because of
the superiority of their product or their policies toward developers.


Kinda like comparing a Socialist economic system to a Capitalist economic
system.


I think that's quite a stretch.

Uh....Radio Shack.....(remember the TRS-80?)

OK, one, and I guess if we count Zenith that makes two. But both were
successful businesses before personal computers, neither abandoned their
other markets to pursue computers, and both have gotten out of computer
manufacturing--Radio Shack is a DECPaquard outlet but doesn't make or sell
their own anymore, while Zenith went back to televisions. Are any of the
myriad companies that sprang up to manufacture CP/M machines still around?

And if there's anybody to blame it's Digital Research--if CP/M-86 had been
delivered on time then Seattle DOS would never have been written and
Microsoft wouldn't have had a product to sell to IBM.

PHilski

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)