Quoting: dvdIf cheaper always won then there wouldn't be Microsoft/Apple, since libre systems have been around forever. It's more like the one that does the lying (marketing) and law abuse better wins. It's as true in the computing industry as outside it.

MS won through back door deals and scummery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIfNIWn2Ad4
Apple only exists because of Microsoft. They were on the edge of bankruptcy until MS was under fire, and tossed some money their way to keep from being a monopoly...

And as damarrin pointed out, Linux came out later. Though there were the BSDs, they weren't in a great state at the time. And 'cheap' to most consumers is 'it comes with the computer'.

Last edited by slaapliedje on 1 October 2020 at 3:25 pm UTC

Quoting: slaapliedjeThen again, I have also tended to think they are the better solutions than their competitor's, but because people tend toward cheap over quality, the better product tends to lose. (Take for example any early version of Windows against the Amiga, or beta vs VHS...) I mean going back in time, the Apple Machintosh didn't even have color displays for a bit after they were first introduced, but because they got into schools and their high price demanded that they clearly must be so much better than the Amiga or Atari ST... yet both of those platforms at times could run Mac software better than the Mac...

While I can not argue against "Macintosh vs. Amiga", I think it is actually moot, as both lost to the winner -- IBM PC.

And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.

So, in a sense, the better product won. (Not that it made IBM any good, but still…)

Quoting: Alm888And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.

Wrong! Amiga had also an Open Architecture and a lot better OS on the top

The reason that Amiga "lost", is that Commodore failed with their own PC Clones, and lost an huge amount of money which put them out of business. The hardware and OS was far to superior then what IBM PCs had to offer at this point and for years after that!

Last edited by Chronarius on 2 October 2020 at 9:31 pm UTC

Quoting: Chronarius

Quoting: Alm888And the "Mac vs. PC" (or "Amiga vs. PC" for that matter) was entirely different case. Yes, spec-vise IBM PC was inferior (and overpriced to boot), but it had the core element: Open Architecture -- that ultimately helped it win the war. While the "IBM PC" models were inferior, numerous "IBM PC clones" (soon to be called "IBM PC compatible" and shortly after just "PC") surpassed everything.

Wrong! Amiga had also an Open Architecture and a lot better OS on the top

The reason that Amiga "lost", is that Commodore failed with their own PC Clones, and lost an huge amount of money which put them out of business. The hardware and OS was far to superior then what IBM PCs had to offer at this point and for years after that!

Not to mention not giving R&D Engineers enough money, spending it instead on vacations, and of course spending time on dumb things (like the A600 when they already had AGA systems). Then there is the 'me too!' of the CD32...
Also, the IBM models were actually far superior to the crap that Compaq and Packard Bell put out. They just made them so much cheaper, so more people bought those than Big Blue.