Differences between current version and predecessor to the previous major change of FUD.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 7 | Last edited on Sunday, July 4, 2004 3:31:13 pm | by AristotlePagaltzis | |
| Older page: | version 5 | Last edited on Sunday, July 4, 2004 2:23:18 am | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
See also: LinuxFudDispelled
!! Historical examples
-Digital Research launched their [DR-DOS], which was better and cheaper than [MS-DOS] 5 and received favourable reviews all around. [Microsoft] reacted by putting out
a beta
of Windows 3.1 that
produced an inconsequential warning message when run under [DR-DOS]. They also announced that [MS-DOS] 6 would do all that [DR-DOS] could and more. In reality, [MS-DOS] 6 was vapourware at the time. The rumour spread that you'd have problems running Windows on [DR-DOS], even though it wasn't true at all. It is questionable whether the [MS-DOS] 6 that eventually materialized was better than [DR-DOS], but [Microsoft] designed a dealer package that made it more expensive not to bundle Windows with [MS-DOS], and left [DR-DOS] dead in the water. This is believed to be the making of the [Microsoft] monopoly.
+Digital Research launched their [DR-DOS], which was better and cheaper than [MS-DOS] 5 and received favourable reviews all around. [Microsoft] reacted by putting a test in a pre-release
of Windows 3.1 which came to be known as [the AARD code | http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geoffch/editorial/aard/] and
produced an inconsequential warning message when run under [DR-DOS]. They also announced that [MS-DOS] 6 would do all that [DR-DOS] could and more. In reality, [MS-DOS] 6 was vapourware at the time. The rumour spread that you'd have problems running Windows on [DR-DOS], even though it wasn't true at all. It is questionable whether the [MS-DOS] 6 that eventually materialized was better than [DR-DOS], but [Microsoft] designed a dealer package that made it more expensive not to bundle Windows with [MS-DOS], and left [DR-DOS] dead in the water. This is believed to be the making of the [Microsoft] monopoly.
AMSTRAD was a UK consumer electronics manufacturer whose product design rationalization allowed them to sell decent electronics at rock-bottom prices. When they decided to launch a range of home consumer [PC]s, they found a 35W [PSU] to be sufficient even with a HardDisk and tape streamer attached (low end [PC]s of the time usually came with twin floppy drives), so they decided to power the entire system from the upgraded monitor [PSU]. Since there was no [PSU] in the computer case and its electronics only dissipated about 20W, AMSTRAD PCs required no fan in the case and so were quieter. They were a great success -- so great that they began to find their way into offices where equivalent 'traditional' models typically cost 50-100% more and made a lot of noise. The [FUD] spread: "The AMSTRAD has no cooling fan! With a hard disk it'll melt! Your crashes are because your AMSTRAD is overheating!" These rumours were easily refuted, as AMSTRADs worked well and would remain cool after a day's worth of use, but they scared new customers because AMSTRAD PCs had no fan when all others did. So in the end AMSTRAD fitted a useless fan in the back of the case and everybody was happy. People in the know cut the wires to the fan and never had any problems, but the majority just accepted the constant fan noise as a necessity.
