> when Microsoft Word came along, people obviously preferred it, even if it was slow and crashed all the time
I am sure it's "overdetermined" but why -is- that?
I'd call it the "tragedy of the losing better option": When two alternatives exist and, often, the lesser/worse/worst wins. You find that all over the place.-
Microsoft Word was faster than WordPerfect’s slow, buggy, late release on Windows. Ami Pro was around and also perfectly usable. WP honestly felt like bloatware to my memory, no doubt it had a lot of features, and all I was doing was homework and D&D campaigns, but I don’t remember being unhappy with the options available.
> When two alternatives exist and, often, the lesser/worse/worst wins.
More likely is the one that will appeal more people to win, which in software means a good mix between being the easiest and quickest (hence cheapest) to develop and market, and the easiest for users to learn, and the values aren't to me absolute but rather relative: I don't think there's much difference between the people who can't live without a touch screen today and those who 40 years back could work 8 hrs/day in WordStar only through key sequences.
> I don't think there's much difference between the people who can't live without a touch screen today and those who 40 years back could work 8 hrs/day in WordStar only through key sequences.
But maybe there is a difference? In disposition or even capacity/willingness to exert attention towards a task? Of course, expectations do play a role, and "touch" is (almost) everything these days ...
Flash filled a need to install software in a single click, which the web browser made possible. Flash unironically became so widespread because Microsoft dropped the ball in OS development.
I am sure it's "overdetermined" but why -is- that?
I'd call it the "tragedy of the losing better option": When two alternatives exist and, often, the lesser/worse/worst wins. You find that all over the place.-