I am not sure you actually meant code walks while BS walks; maybe one of those 'walks' wants to be 'talks'?
I think the problem is not just one of a feature comparison, indeed, the symbolics environment had more features in one area than almost anything existing today does.
To do a true comparison, I think one needs to consider the number of layers of stuff that sit between the hardware and the user of the word processing system.
While I think Joel's 80/20 article is quite true, perhaps it deserves more thought. Consider the possibility that his MS experience is with an organization that, in part, competed on features, and MS essentially won the battle. One then at first concludes that it has the features that people want.
Compare that to the automobile safety discussion of decades ago. Automobile executives and marketers concluded, at least publicly, that "Safety doesn't sell". However these days safety is a big part of the sales pitch. What has changed? Well, perhaps nothing has changed other than the thinking at the top of the auto companies.
As useful as Joel's 80/20 argument is, I am having some trouble holding that thought in my head (that is that a feature-laden word processor is what people really want) at the same time as Patrick's observation that most of his paying customers see his program as just another part of Google.
I think it would be useful to drill down into these concepts a little further.
I think the problem is not just one of a feature comparison, indeed, the symbolics environment had more features in one area than almost anything existing today does.
To do a true comparison, I think one needs to consider the number of layers of stuff that sit between the hardware and the user of the word processing system.
While I think Joel's 80/20 article is quite true, perhaps it deserves more thought. Consider the possibility that his MS experience is with an organization that, in part, competed on features, and MS essentially won the battle. One then at first concludes that it has the features that people want.
Compare that to the automobile safety discussion of decades ago. Automobile executives and marketers concluded, at least publicly, that "Safety doesn't sell". However these days safety is a big part of the sales pitch. What has changed? Well, perhaps nothing has changed other than the thinking at the top of the auto companies.
As useful as Joel's 80/20 argument is, I am having some trouble holding that thought in my head (that is that a feature-laden word processor is what people really want) at the same time as Patrick's observation that most of his paying customers see his program as just another part of Google.
I think it would be useful to drill down into these concepts a little further.