From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.
Nntp-Posting-Host: okra.cam-orl.co.uk
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.
Lines: 34

In article <15008@news.duke.edu>, kdb@sunbar.mc.duke.edu (Kurt Bollacker) writes:
|> Tim Glauert (thg@cam-orl.co.uk) wrote:
|> : In other words, it is your *opinion* that MSW3.1 is inferior to its
|> : competition.  That's not the same as MSW3.1 being objectively inferior.
|> 
|> No.  It is technically inferior to the OS/GUIs that I listed.

OK, now you are starting to define your criteria.

|> By this criterion, it is inferior.

I'm afraid that you haven't actually proved that.  You have shown that some
aspects of MSW3.1 are technically inferior to other systems.  As I said
earlier, if this is all you are trying to say then it is trivially true.
But some aspects of MSW3.1 are actually technically superior to each of the
other systems (resource requirements, performace, device support, printer
support, GUI etc.)

[ BTW, I'd love to see the studies which show that UNIX/X is as easy to
  learn as Windows! ]

But I might even agree that, on balance, MSW3.1 is technically inferior to
some of the competition. This still does not prove your point.

|>  If you have another, then perhaps I am incorrect.

Range of available applications? Base OS cost? Cost of applications? Cost
of hardware? Multi-platform support?  Quality of the after-sales service?
Availability of books/training materials? Support for visual and physical
handicaps?  Suitability for use in mobile computing? Quality of
Documentation?

If you think that technical excellence is the only factor when deciding on
an OS, or indeed the primary factor, you need to think again.
