IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Not Digital Research's only mistake.
With Concurrent DOS / Multiuser DOS they had a wonderful mass market product but couldn't see it. My MUDOS environment was the absolute envy of every programmer who saw it, and many business people would have loved it too - if they could afford $750 per computer. DR should have sold a single user version for $150 or so. They would have sold millions, and they would have delayed Windows a couple of years at least.

Unfortunately they saw themselves as a low volume provider to VARs and ISVs of a multiuser competitor to Unix. Eventually, a far less capable task switching feature was included in DR-DOS, but it wasn't marketed properly, and the market window had already nearly closed.

Apparently, to qualify as a software company executive, you need to prove you have less marketing sense than a sea slug. Off hand, I can't think of any exceptions to this rule except Microsoft.
New Full agreement.
I spent a week in Monterey, CA for DR training on Concurrent CP-DOS. Even briefly saw Gary Kildahl at the pizza party at the end of the week. The DR guys were impressive. They intimately knew every step level of Intel's 286 and were helping them debug it. They knew all the MS-DOS system calls like the back of their hand. They were developing a 680x0 version of the OS at the same time and were going back and forth between the two hardware architectures in testing and picking up design flaws. They were purists, but they were good!

Unfortunately, as you say, they didn't see the market potential of what they had or taylor it for the a single user.

For that time, their GEM GUI product didn't look bad either. I didn't play with it much.

A missed opportunity for them.

On the other hand, their C compiler was a piece of junk. They did not use it themselves for the OS work! The compiler they used was from a company that's long gone and I can't think of at the moment.
Expand Edited by a6l6e6x July 14, 2001, 11:32:45 PM EDT
New It was the Lattice C compiler. And they live!
Live more or less that is. Their home page:


Reading their history it looks like Microsoft C was based on Lattice as well as many others.

They are out of C compiler business now.

I feel better now that I've "recalled" Lattice with help from Google.
New Weren't they the ones who did the C compiler for the Amiga?
New Yes, indeed.
From their site:

"Versions of the Lattice C Compiler were released for DOS, OS/2, MVS, VMS, UNIX, AmigaDOS, and many other operating systems."
New A big problem was Kildahl
He kept spouting his mouth off to Bill Gates, then got very bitter when Billy Boy kept taking his ideas and marketing them with gusto, crushing his own techie dreams in the process.

Techies despise marketeers, and so long as they do, they will continue to be blindsided. Both [link|http://www.gpf-comics.com/|GPF] and [link|http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/|User Friendly] reflect this attitude wonderfully. The truth is: an OK product well marketed will always crush a superior product that is not marketed well.

One of the most important reasons for the success of Linux is intensive and effective marketing, yet no Linux enthusiast will admit there's any marketing at all involved with Linux.

Within the Linux community Red Hat dominates purely on the strength of understanding how to market to the Linux community, yet this is invisible to the community. I've had Linux enthusiasts tell me, "I've never seen any Red Hat marketing".

"I am not affected by markething" is the mantra of the techie, and it makes them totally vulnerable. They can't even see marketing, never mind understand how it affects them. Of course, that's the state of the general public as well.
New Good points.
New excellent viewpoint
I like redhat because when i was in the RTP anfd they were pre IPO I used to mooch around at Stay On Line at the end of the street I lived on where RH techies would hang out and bs with the passerbys. Already tried one RH distro in Alaska and liked calling my "buds" for advice while at Eli Lilly. That is prolly why Eli Lilly is now mostly RH when it comes to Linux. The freebees were always good.
can I have my ones and zeros back?
New The Amiga and Linux
It seems like Linux is mostly marketed by word of mouth by Linux users, much like AmigaDOS and the Amiga was. When I tell some average person that I use Linux, they claim they have never heard of it before. I guess the marketing of Linux is being done towards computer professionals who already know what it is? That is if there is any at all. Sort of reminds me of the Amiga marketing, which was almost non-existant in the US. The most I saw of Amiga marketing was the magazine ad that appeared in Amiga magazines. They might have done better if they put magazine ads in non-Amiga magazines and got the word out to new customers that never heard of it before. No TV commercials that I saw, except for one that I think was the CD32 or something, their Game Console version of the Amiga done around the time Commodore was becoming a corpse and didn't know it yet.

Rather than suffer the fate of the Amiga (I like Amigas, I own an Amiga 500 at home) and fall into a small market, I'd rather see more Linux marketing to get the word out to those who never heard of it before. About what it can do, what it costs next to other operating systems, and how it performs. Get out the old feature-chart and place it in magazines and newspapers. See if the Wall-Street Journal will run an advertisement with Linux stacked up against Windows 2000, Novell Netware, SCO Unix, Solaris and other network operating systems. Then add in MySQL, SAMBA, Apache/PHP, QMAIL, OpenOffice/StarOffice, Mozilla, Java, and other things.

Lattice C compiler, I remember that one from college. I remember they were just about the only decent C compiler for the Amiga, some of my C language classmates used it for C projects for our class. Too bad Lattice quit the C Language market, but I guess they felt that it was hard to compete with Borland, Microsoft, and many others.

"I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!"  Moe Howard

     MS chases Windows licence fee from kids charity - (brettj) - (34)
         They should. - (addison) - (32)
             How often do we have to pay for Windows? - (brettj) - (31)
                 Whether called 'license' sale or lease, - (Ashton)
                 The answer is "Yes". - (Andrew Grygus) - (29)
                     MICROSOFT HAS A MONOPOLY - (imric) - (27)
                         OEM's who installed alternatives . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (16)
                             Come on, tell us what you *really* think...... ;) -NT - (tjsinclair) - (3)
                                 What I really think . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                     *evil grin* -NT - (imric)
                                     That flyer must make for some good stories. - (static)
                             And of course - (imric)
                             There's a lot of blame to go around. - (addison)
                             Blather what you wish - (wharris2) - (9)
                                 Poor baby - (Andrew Grygus) - (8)
                                     While we're casting blame about here... - (addison) - (7)
                                         Yup, we were giving the USERS what they asked for. - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
                                             "Poor baby". - (addison) - (5)
                                                 It is all our faults - (orion)
                                                 You can spread the blame any way you like . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                                     I suspect that your ethical performance is unusual. - (Ashton)
                                                     Then you're in denial. - (addison) - (1)
                                                         Lighten up: you sincerely tried. So did Andy. No 'blame' - (Ashton)
                         Minor correction, not all IBM's fault. - (a6l6e6x) - (9)
                             Not Digital Research's only mistake. - (Andrew Grygus) - (8)
                                 Full agreement. - (a6l6e6x) - (7)
                                     It was the Lattice C compiler. And they live! - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                         Weren't they the ones who did the C compiler for the Amiga? -NT - (tjsinclair) - (1)
                                             Yes, indeed. - (a6l6e6x)
                                     A big problem was Kildahl - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                         Good points. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                         excellent viewpoint - (boxley)
                                         The Amiga and Linux - (orion)
                     Well said, as usual, Andrew. -NT - (tjsinclair)
         Let's hope they hit some widows, geriatrics next- preferably - (Ashton)

72 ms