Reading Response 1 - Jackson Mote

In the article In the Beginning was the Command Line, Neal Stephenson discusses many different aspects of technologies that we know and love today. His main point is to show the difference in Microsoft and Apple as well as the differences in these companies’ product development. Stephenson shows the difference between the Windows and Macintosh software and challenges the salability of these operating systems. He uses an example of big and small car dealerships to show the difference in the consumer thought process. While, in comparison, showing how consumers see the Linux operating system (Part 2). In this example, he shows how often Microsoft updates their Windows operating system with small functionality and reliability updates. It is interesting that consumers follow this product line so closely because these users could not possibly need every single new feature each OS version. Stephenson points that users are drawn mainly to reliability while new features are what make an operating system salable.

Stephenson goes on to describe his old teletype setup and how it relates to computer processing in this day and age. He describes the process known as batch processing and how it was slow even though it was considered to be a faster mode of communication. This process was before any advanced graphical user interface had been widely used. Stephenson then continues describing the technological advancement from teletype and batch processing to GUI and HTML. HTML is a coding language that is mainly used for web page design and allows the computer to visualize what is stated by the HTML onto the website a user is visiting. I was particularly interested by his Ronald Reagan baseball example. He related HTML to the scores and plays of baseball and the computer interface to Ronald Reagan, who glorified these scores and plays over the radio.

Stephenson did a great job of summarizing many technologies and their proponents, yet a question remained to me. He states that if all operating systems were free, Microsoft and Apple could focus more on hardware improvement and creating a better user experience. If this is the case, then why have these computer giants not already made their OSes free? Although it would result in lost revenue, users will be more likely to upgrade their hardware. It would raise the overall quality of their products and keep these companies focused on innovation rather than profitability. I do understand that building and updating an operating system takes time and the power of computer engineers. However, if Microsoft and Apple were able to break free of the currently OS pricing model, their finished product would improve and so would the happiness level of the consumer (creating loyalty).