bastion, on 28 February 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:
It's only different because you're continuing to conflate Windows with Microsoft. I'm assuming that the author wrote what they meant. You're assuming the author meant something else. The release of Win95 wasn't an inflection point on Microsoft's roadmap but it was certainly one in that of the Windows brand. Not (only) technologically but also in terms of market acceptance. That's what happened and that's what the article says.
First, suggesting I continue to conflate the difference between Microsoft and Windows is to suggest Windows had not already "run away from the Mac" prior to Win95. It had. Hence my point of revisionist history. Hence my suggestion that distinguishing the two bares little relevance to this discussion.
Second, I'm not making assumptions of what the author meant. I'm commenting on what the author said. Windows had already surpassed the Mac prior to "adding technically superior features" (Win95). The author claimed this didn't happen "until" these features were added to Windows. This also implies causation for Win95's success while ignoring other pretty obvious factors such as Microsoft stopping the sale of Windows 3.1 and DOS, etc.
Nobody is arguing that Win95 was indeed popular for Microsoft. The point is, the success of this product has nothing to do with the Mac. If you actually take the time to read what was written, words like "until" describe a linkage to the Mac as if the Mac was somehow holding sales of Windows at bay until that point. That's simply not the case. If you wish to debate this further, please do so by quoting what was said by both parties and not by making your own interpretations.