I think what you say has already been done to a limited degree with the 'compatibility' mode. See under properties of a exe. Also, a DOS command window was a VM in NT/95/98 and after that. Maybe not a fullfledged processor emulator, but a VM nonetheless.
Lots of recent vulnerabilities reported(on Slashdot too) work only in Windows XP and not in Vista/Win7 because of a better security model and additional security measures like sandboxing. And MS is slowly going to focus less on fixing up XP so it's better to upgrade if you can.
I just put my monitor-setting-up xrandr command into a script and assign it run after X starts up and viola. xrandr is so simple, that if you don't like it, just unplug your keyboard you pansy mouse lover.
This is the reason that Linux's year on the Desktop hasn't arrived yet.
The fact that you've fallen back to whining about editing config files tells me that Arch is still on the right path.
Right path to what? Being used only by uber geeks with lots of free time? Or converting the general populace to geeks?
Not sure what you were doing wrong, but I have found the Nvidia linux driver to be brilliant. You need to run nvidia settings with root priv's so it can output the xorg.conf file, but this is to be expected. Even without root privileges you can change most stuff in the current session to get dual screens working, it will just forget it all next time it run.
This is the classic 'works for me' argument. This is simply unacceptable for home use by non-geeks, and what about users with non-Nvidia cards?
No, run nvidia-settings, click the 2nd screen and say 'enable'. It's basically the same process as on windows now-a-days.
How intuitive is knowing that you need to run nvidia-settings? And what about people with Intel/ATI etc. cards? Stop trying to say it's easy because you have already done the research required in user forums on the internet etc. The reason it's easier in Windows is because of: 1) A little less convoluted way 2) Familiarity or the the easiness of finding someone who knows how to do it.
Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral.
How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in.NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and.NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?
Ive been running as a standard user on W2K and XP since 2001 and have never found any real issue. Runas is a simple-to-use service that provides similar benefits to UAC without the problems of it trying to guess what you're trying to do (and frequently getting it wrong).
Out of hundreds of millions of users who use Windows, MS should base their OS on your usage? Most of your other arguments are like that. Like:
most users do not install new hardware, but just use what was installed on the machine to start with
Huh? 'Most'? People buy and install new hardware all the time, webcams, printers and what not. Even if what you say is true, people other than 'most' would amount to a hundred million users atleast.
Windows GUI Usage Guide
First things first. Handbrake on the Windows Platform does NOT decrypt Commercial DVDs. Let me repeat this. It does NOT decrypt commercial DVDs.
Third-party software is required for this part of the process. (e.g. AnyDVD, DVD43 or DVD Decryptor)
(Note: Please note that these applications are not legal in many countries. You should consult the law in your own country before using these applications. We do not provide support for 3rd party applications!)
Hope that clears things up instead of going up in arms about DRM. If Hollywood gets even a whiff of MS enabling any circumvention... bam.. billion dollar lawsuit.
. But it's coupled with nasty DRM which requires all kinds of fun anti-user licensing bullshit.
Huh what? Can you elaborate what DRM got in your way?
Re:It's actually kind of scary
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway.
Why would you want to have to run your own website and manage all the bandwidth bills and marketing when you can pay a pittance for Apple to do all that for you? Secondly, developers are flocking to the app store en masse. The 50,000+ apps on the store aren't coming out of someone's rectum so they clearly most have some sort of developer following.
I don't understand this reasoning at all. The developers can run their own website if they are so inclined or already have one. If not they use the App store to host. Forcing the developers to the App Store is one way to protect the 30% cut and prevent competition. How can you claim that the 50k+ applications show the strength of App store when there's no credible alternative at present? Cydia is not, because there are very few jailbroken iPhones.
Some more points I wanted to add, the alternative App store sucks right now because there's barely any market for it because jailbroken iPhones are very few. Once the iPhone opens up, there will be lot better alternatives and applications and app stores charging the devs less than 30%, which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, that's why the lockdown.
f any old person could come along and write another browser, you'd wind up with all sorts of problems (I develop iPhone apps for a living - there ARE reasons for stopping people from doing this).
Right now, for example, the user experience is simple: tap a link and it opens in the browser. What happens when another browser is installed that usurps the browser's URL app handler, but also doesn't properly implement their own? You'd suddenly have droves of people whining about how "the" browser doesn't work. That's a big problem. Granted, even with different rules something like that would never make it to the App Store, but it's possible.
Or what if someone dveloped a Flash-capale browser? Apple has barred Flash (and similar tech) because of the cost to system resources of running the stuff. Battery life would go to crap, and it's entirely possible the device would overheat (if you think that sounds ridiculous, take a look at what Flash does to your *desktop* machine - the number one way I extend my MacBook's battery time is by closing all browser instances that are hosting Flash).
One of the major reasons the iPhone is such a great platform is that Apple *did* lock it down, ultimately making it easier to use and less problematic for your average user who's never going to think it was Flash that drained the battery.
MS can use similar reasoning that alternate applications confuse users, so only their browser and media player, office suite etc. should be used. How ridiculous does that sound? I can't imagine people on this site making this argument.
Also, did this app http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ run down the battery? Or this http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 ? Or hundreds of others? And I am sure that out of the 64k applications, some must be draining the battery, like AT&T's own navigation application. You must be quite entrenched to justify the App stores shortcomings in this manner.
Re:It's actually kind of scary
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple's take is nothing. If you think a 70% take for the creator is unfair, then you've never tried to sell anything on a scale greater than a flea market or garage sale.
Apple is handling distribution, payment processing, some marketing, paying the bandwidth bill, all while making your app available to anyone with an iPhone. That's anything but unfair.
If you think you can get a better overall package elsewhere, then you can always try the jailbreak market, but that, despite all the "freedom", hasn't exactly taken off. Why I would pay $5 for an app I could get for $1 (or less) in the App Store is a mystery. I'm sure that'll change as more commercial offerings for jailbroken phones appear, but right now it's not so hot.
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway. But looks like Apple just wants to take the 30% cut and be in control of the platform and is jumping through hoops and making developers jump through more just for the sake of it. The other reasons you state are secondary. Apple can as well give a proper stern warning before allowing unsigned apps to install and hence the blame won't be on them if users do.
Far from being a "jail", the out-of-the-box iPhone has kicked off tons of amazing work, in part because there is now a viable way to get your unusual app out there - one that never would have received so much support in the past (try getting some of the more esoteric, arty apps into Best Buy - on *any* platform).
Then just imagine how it would be if developer freedom was respected. How many more innovative programs could be developed?
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Whiner.
Good day.
Your reply started well but tapered off into something a little fanboyish at the end.:/ Good day to you too.
Good that someone didn't lock down the internet with similar reasoning to yours. "Let them build their own free internet if they want to compete". See how absurd that sounds?
Re:It's actually kind of scary
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're missing something crucial in the difference between a IBM/PC and iPhone. The question of developer freedom. The developers are free to develop and distribute WHATEVER they want in the IBM/PC world on Windows/Linux/Whatever. Whereas on the iPhone, it's illegal to develop even a browser and anything you develop will have a 30% Apple tax slapped on it and there's no alternate means of *widespread* distribution. Probably MS's revenue would eclipse the US's GDP if MS charged 30% of every Photoshop, Autocad etc. license ever sold.
Microsoft cleverly stayed out of this by not becoming an OEM and by licensing MS-DOS to Compaq when they made a IBM clone by reverse engineering IBM hardware and bios. That single act commoditised the entire PC industry and made hardware dirt cheap and available to the common man. Or we would still be in a walled garden with expensive hardware. MS did stifle innovation in software, but Netscape nevertheless flourished when it did. Now, even if someone has an idea for a better browser on the iPhone than Safari, they can't even make one.
Re:It's actually kind of scary
on
Lost In the Cloud
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Seriously. The people who say that it's Apple's property or that consoles are similarly locked down are missing the point. Consoles etc. were never projected to be a computing platform. We already have people hailing the iPhone as the mobile computing platform and the iTouch as Apple's version of the netbook. It is just Apple trying to get greedy by triple dipping into the jar by charging first for the phone, then taking a nice chunk of the users' monthly phone/data plan fee through AT&T, and then skimming 30% off the cost of a application in the App Store from the user/developer.
And applications cannot use 'undocumented APIs'(determined inconsistently by arbitrary lackeys), contain political undertones, or any hint of non PG 13 content or compete in anyway with Apple's builtin programs. http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/ This would be okay if there was alternate means to get applications, but the only way to get widespread distribution is through the App Store. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/122225 MS bundled a browser with it's OS, but Apple gets away with banning any browser from being developed at all, not allowing any VM(like Java) and gets a free pass because it's not a monopoly(yet)?
Mr. Jobs replied :
Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point?
Steve
So, before you develop the application, you might want to brush up on what Jobs MIGHT think about any political overtones in your application. There are no clear guidelines or rules. Some Apps are allowed, and other Apps with similar type of content or using similar development tools rejected.
They say that when restrictions come, they come wrapped in a sweet looking package. That may well be the iPhone to condition people to the world of restrictive applications on machines billed as general computing devices.
An IP address identifies a node on a network, not necessarily a computer, but I believe the judge is correct in pointing out that they do not identify people.
The 'node'(eg. a cisco router) is technically a computer as well(for layman, court purposes).
From the article(writer's words, not Negroponte's):
The "$100 laptop" term was the OLPC marketing failure. If the XO was again called the "Children's Machine", or better yet "the best educational tool for primary school children in the developing world", which isn't as catchy as "$100 laptop" but much more accurate, he would be crowing about multiples of millions of childrens, not just about one.
But calling it something like "Children's Machine" instead of "$100 laptop" might not have given it the chance of catching investor's or public's eye and might have died a death similar to many other types of custom machines. And running it on top of regular distros is not really feasible because the requirements for the OLPC were like 1 GB NAND flash drive and 256 MB. Run Ubuntu on a 8 year old machine now and you will realize that it's exactly very usable, even for web browsing.
You're opening yourself up to vulnerabilities in the browser control used by various programs like Winamp, RealPlayer etc. What's so bad about keeping IE up to date while you use your favorite browser? I bet millions of geeks do that with no problem.
Huh? Slashdot modding up revisionist history again? From the survey download page:
41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%.
But 34 percent said they expected to deploy Windows 7 by the end of 2010, with 5.4 percent expected to install the OS by the end of the year.
Actually, if you ask me, the real news is that a full 34% is going to deploy Windows 7. That's a pretty big number for corporate deployments, see how slow transition was from 2K to XP.
MS in its early days did a lot to help out the computer industry in some ways
I disagree.
I remember in 1991, I purchased a NeXTstation. It had a beautiful, usable GUI layered over a powerful multitasking Unix operating system, with development tools that were not rivaled on any platform until at least a decade later. Meanwhile, at work I used Windows for Workgroups 3.11, an ugly, unstable DOS shell. My employer considered NeXTs (and did buy a few), but based on Microsoft's promises for the upcoming OS/2 decided to stick with Windows.
The NeXTstation was $5000. The x86 competition was a lot cheaper. If your company and every other company got NeXTstationsm, today we would still have one vendor selling maybe $2000 computers and computing and internet wouldn't have had taken off like they did. Today Apple buys CPUs from Intel and GPUs from Nvidia and ATI alternatively and gets hardware for less. Would those companies even have existed if MS didn't license DOS to Compaq first and the rest later? I doubt it. Open competition in the hardware market would've been squished and computers would have been super expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what you say has already been done to a limited degree with the 'compatibility' mode. See under properties of a exe. Also, a DOS command window was a VM in NT/95/98 and after that. Maybe not a fullfledged processor emulator, but a VM nonetheless.
Lots of recent vulnerabilities reported(on Slashdot too) work only in Windows XP and not in Vista/Win7 because of a better security model and additional security measures like sandboxing. And MS is slowly going to focus less on fixing up XP so it's better to upgrade if you can.
I just put my monitor-setting-up xrandr command into a script and assign it run after X starts up and viola. xrandr is so simple, that if you don't like it, just unplug your keyboard you pansy mouse lover.
This is the reason that Linux's year on the Desktop hasn't arrived yet.
The fact that you've fallen back to whining about editing config files tells me that Arch is still on the right path.
Right path to what? Being used only by uber geeks with lots of free time? Or converting the general populace to geeks?
Not sure what you were doing wrong, but I have found the Nvidia linux driver to be brilliant. You need to run nvidia settings with root priv's so it can output the xorg.conf file, but this is to be expected. Even without root privileges you can change most stuff in the current session to get dual screens working, it will just forget it all next time it run.
This is the classic 'works for me' argument. This is simply unacceptable for home use by non-geeks, and what about users with non-Nvidia cards?
No, run nvidia-settings, click the 2nd screen and say 'enable'. It's basically the same process as on windows now-a-days.
How intuitive is knowing that you need to run nvidia-settings? And what about people with Intel/ATI etc. cards? Stop trying to say it's easy because you have already done the research required in user forums on the internet etc. The reason it's easier in Windows is because of: 1) A little less convoluted way 2) Familiarity or the the easiness of finding someone who knows how to do it.
That is very true. And the court can order fines or restitution for lost sales/opportunity if the code is not to be released under GPL.
Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral.
How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in .NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and .NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?
Ive been running as a standard user on W2K and XP since 2001 and have never found any real issue. Runas is a simple-to-use service that provides similar benefits to UAC without the problems of it trying to guess what you're trying to do (and frequently getting it wrong).
Out of hundreds of millions of users who use Windows, MS should base their OS on your usage? Most of your other arguments are like that. Like:
most users do not install new hardware, but just use what was installed on the machine to start with
Huh? 'Most'? People buy and install new hardware all the time, webcams, printers and what not. Even if what you say is true, people other than 'most' would amount to a hundred million users atleast.
Windows GUI Usage Guide First things first. Handbrake on the Windows Platform does NOT decrypt Commercial DVDs. Let me repeat this. It does NOT decrypt commercial DVDs. Third-party software is required for this part of the process. (e.g. AnyDVD, DVD43 or DVD Decryptor) (Note: Please note that these applications are not legal in many countries. You should consult the law in your own country before using these applications. We do not provide support for 3rd party applications!)
Hope that clears things up instead of going up in arms about DRM. If Hollywood gets even a whiff of MS enabling any circumvention... bam.. billion dollar lawsuit.
. But it's coupled with nasty DRM which requires all kinds of fun anti-user licensing bullshit.
Huh what? Can you elaborate what DRM got in your way?
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway.
Why would you want to have to run your own website and manage all the bandwidth bills and marketing when you can pay a pittance for Apple to do all that for you? Secondly, developers are flocking to the app store en masse. The 50,000+ apps on the store aren't coming out of someone's rectum so they clearly most have some sort of developer following.
I don't understand this reasoning at all. The developers can run their own website if they are so inclined or already have one. If not they use the App store to host. Forcing the developers to the App Store is one way to protect the 30% cut and prevent competition. How can you claim that the 50k+ applications show the strength of App store when there's no credible alternative at present? Cydia is not, because there are very few jailbroken iPhones.
f any old person could come along and write another browser, you'd wind up with all sorts of problems (I develop iPhone apps for a living - there ARE reasons for stopping people from doing this). Right now, for example, the user experience is simple: tap a link and it opens in the browser. What happens when another browser is installed that usurps the browser's URL app handler, but also doesn't properly implement their own? You'd suddenly have droves of people whining about how "the" browser doesn't work. That's a big problem. Granted, even with different rules something like that would never make it to the App Store, but it's possible. Or what if someone dveloped a Flash-capale browser? Apple has barred Flash (and similar tech) because of the cost to system resources of running the stuff. Battery life would go to crap, and it's entirely possible the device would overheat (if you think that sounds ridiculous, take a look at what Flash does to your *desktop* machine - the number one way I extend my MacBook's battery time is by closing all browser instances that are hosting Flash). One of the major reasons the iPhone is such a great platform is that Apple *did* lock it down, ultimately making it easier to use and less problematic for your average user who's never going to think it was Flash that drained the battery.
MS can use similar reasoning that alternate applications confuse users, so only their browser and media player, office suite etc. should be used. How ridiculous does that sound? I can't imagine people on this site making this argument. Also, did this app http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/ run down the battery? Or this http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 ? Or hundreds of others? And I am sure that out of the 64k applications, some must be draining the battery, like AT&T's own navigation application. You must be quite entrenched to justify the App stores shortcomings in this manner.
Apple's take is nothing. If you think a 70% take for the creator is unfair, then you've never tried to sell anything on a scale greater than a flea market or garage sale. Apple is handling distribution, payment processing, some marketing, paying the bandwidth bill, all while making your app available to anyone with an iPhone. That's anything but unfair. If you think you can get a better overall package elsewhere, then you can always try the jailbreak market, but that, despite all the "freedom", hasn't exactly taken off. Why I would pay $5 for an app I could get for $1 (or less) in the App Store is a mystery. I'm sure that'll change as more commercial offerings for jailbroken phones appear, but right now it's not so hot.
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway. But looks like Apple just wants to take the 30% cut and be in control of the platform and is jumping through hoops and making developers jump through more just for the sake of it. The other reasons you state are secondary. Apple can as well give a proper stern warning before allowing unsigned apps to install and hence the blame won't be on them if users do.
Far from being a "jail", the out-of-the-box iPhone has kicked off tons of amazing work, in part because there is now a viable way to get your unusual app out there - one that never would have received so much support in the past (try getting some of the more esoteric, arty apps into Best Buy - on *any* platform).
Then just imagine how it would be if developer freedom was respected. How many more innovative programs could be developed?
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about. Whiner. Good day.
Your reply started well but tapered off into something a little fanboyish at the end. :/ Good day to you too.
Good that someone didn't lock down the internet with similar reasoning to yours. "Let them build their own free internet if they want to compete". See how absurd that sounds?
Microsoft cleverly stayed out of this by not becoming an OEM and by licensing MS-DOS to Compaq when they made a IBM clone by reverse engineering IBM hardware and bios. That single act commoditised the entire PC industry and made hardware dirt cheap and available to the common man. Or we would still be in a walled garden with expensive hardware. MS did stifle innovation in software, but Netscape nevertheless flourished when it did. Now, even if someone has an idea for a better browser on the iPhone than Safari, they can't even make one.
Seriously. The people who say that it's Apple's property or that consoles are similarly locked down are missing the point. Consoles etc. were never projected to be a computing platform. We already have people hailing the iPhone as the mobile computing platform and the iTouch as Apple's version of the netbook. It is just Apple trying to get greedy by triple dipping into the jar by charging first for the phone, then taking a nice chunk of the users' monthly phone/data plan fee through AT&T, and then skimming 30% off the cost of a application in the App Store from the user/developer.
And applications cannot use 'undocumented APIs'(determined inconsistently by arbitrary lackeys), contain political undertones, or any hint of non PG 13 content or compete in anyway with Apple's builtin programs. http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/ This would be okay if there was alternate means to get applications, but the only way to get widespread distribution is through the App Store. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/122225 MS bundled a browser with it's OS, but Apple gets away with banning any browser from being developed at all, not allowing any VM(like Java) and gets a free pass because it's not a monopoly(yet)?
For example, there was a app for a countdown clock for second term of Bush in Nov 2008. When it was rejected, the author emailed Apple, and Jobs himself replied: http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/
Mr. Jobs replied : Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. Whatâ(TM)s the point? Steve
So, before you develop the application, you might want to brush up on what Jobs MIGHT think about any political overtones in your application. There are no clear guidelines or rules. Some Apps are allowed, and other Apps with similar type of content or using similar development tools rejected.
There's another case of Apple rejecting an application for duplicate functionality and then filing a patent for a similar app. Details are here http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18 and here http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/02/app-store-rejections-apple-rejects-ikaraoke-app-then-files-a-p/
They say that when restrictions come, they come wrapped in a sweet looking package. That may well be the iPhone to condition people to the world of restrictive applications on machines billed as general computing devices.
An IP address identifies a node on a network, not necessarily a computer, but I believe the judge is correct in pointing out that they do not identify people.
The 'node'(eg. a cisco router) is technically a computer as well(for layman, court purposes).
From the article(writer's words, not Negroponte's):
The "$100 laptop" term was the OLPC marketing failure. If the XO was again called the "Children's Machine", or better yet "the best educational tool for primary school children in the developing world", which isn't as catchy as "$100 laptop" but much more accurate, he would be crowing about multiples of millions of childrens, not just about one.
But calling it something like "Children's Machine" instead of "$100 laptop" might not have given it the chance of catching investor's or public's eye and might have died a death similar to many other types of custom machines. And running it on top of regular distros is not really feasible because the requirements for the OLPC were like 1 GB NAND flash drive and 256 MB. Run Ubuntu on a 8 year old machine now and you will realize that it's exactly very usable, even for web browsing.
You're opening yourself up to vulnerabilities in the browser control used by various programs like Winamp, RealPlayer etc. What's so bad about keeping IE up to date while you use your favorite browser? I bet millions of geeks do that with no problem.
Wrong. The details are public and exploits could be happening in the wild. How do you know they're not?
From http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/stopgap_fix_for_critical_firef.html
Instructions showing hackers how to exploit an unpatched, critical security hole in Mozilla's new Firefox 3.5 Web browser have been posted online.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
The echo chamber misreads another Windows 7 survey --> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181
Here's a nice graph http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/win7-vs-xp-adoption-rates.jpg
Huh? Slashdot modding up revisionist history again? From the survey download page:
41% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14%.
But 34 percent said they expected to deploy Windows 7 by the end of 2010, with 5.4 percent expected to install the OS by the end of the year.
Actually, if you ask me, the real news is that a full 34% is going to deploy Windows 7. That's a pretty big number for corporate deployments, see how slow transition was from 2K to XP.
MS in its early days did a lot to help out the computer industry in some ways
I disagree.
I remember in 1991, I purchased a NeXTstation. It had a beautiful, usable GUI layered over a powerful multitasking Unix operating system, with development tools that were not rivaled on any platform until at least a decade later. Meanwhile, at work I used Windows for Workgroups 3.11, an ugly, unstable DOS shell. My employer considered NeXTs (and did buy a few), but based on Microsoft's promises for the upcoming OS/2 decided to stick with Windows.
The NeXTstation was $5000. The x86 competition was a lot cheaper. If your company and every other company got NeXTstationsm, today we would still have one vendor selling maybe $2000 computers and computing and internet wouldn't have had taken off like they did. Today Apple buys CPUs from Intel and GPUs from Nvidia and ATI alternatively and gets hardware for less. Would those companies even have existed if MS didn't license DOS to Compaq first and the rest later? I doubt it. Open competition in the hardware market would've been squished and computers would have been super expensive.