Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd May 2014 20:03 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

So I set myself the task of picking five great works of software. The criteria were simple: How long had it been around? Did people directly interact with it every day? Did people use it to do something meaningful? I came up with the office suite Microsoft Office, the image editor Photoshop, the videogame Pac-Man, the operating system Unix, and the text editor Emacs.

Each person has his or her own criteria for these sorts of things, but in my view, this list is woefully inadequate. If it were up to me, I would pick these, in no particular order:

  • A-0 System: the first ever compiler, written by Grace Hopper in 1951 and 1952, for the UNIVAC I.
  • UNIX: This one's a given.
  • WorldWideWeb/CERN HTTPd: the first web browser and the first web server, both written by Tim Berners-Lee. Also a given.
  • Xerox Star: this one is actually a tie between the Star, its research predecessor the Alto, and Douglas Engelbart's NLS. These three combined still define the way we do computing today - whether you look at a desktop, a smartphone, or a tablet. I decided to go with the Star because it was the only one of the three that was commercially available, and because it's so incredibly similar to what we still use today.
  • Windows: you cannot have a list of the greatest software of all time without Windows. You may not like it, you may even hate it, but the impact Windows has had on the computing world - and far, far beyond that - is immense. Not including it is a huge disservice to the operating system that put a computer on every desk, in every home.

This leaves a whole bunch of others out, such as Lotus 1-2-3, DOS, the Mac OS, Linux, and god knows what else - but such is the nature of lists like this.

Thread beginning with comment 588066
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Dasher42
Member since:
2007-04-05

That's a monopoly's marketing in action, not technological innovation. The market could have seen an ecosystem of competing platforms. The Amiga had long filenames, pre-emptive multitasking, hardware-accelerated video and sound, and multimedia in 1986. The Atari had amazing capabilities too. The Mac was the clear leader in GUI development, and BeOS had innovations still not fully realized in today's OS. OS/2 had incredibly solid design, such that video driver crashes didn't even bring down the operating system, and an awesome threading model.

All of these deserved a fair shot at the market denied to them by monopolistic practices and lock-down through OEM agreements with Microsoft. The fact that a PC wound up on every desktop was bound to happen. It happened belatedly and half-assedly and with security holes that have fundamentally affected the growth of the internet, thanks to Microsoft.

Everything else on this list was a first of its kind innovation; Microsoft invented nothing of significance, not even MS-DOS. In fact, everything they added was old news to the technophiles by the time it showed up in a Microsoft product, usually after MS's marketing arm had argued against it and acted to kill it elsewhere.

Edited 2014-05-03 03:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

MIcrosoft didn't have a monopoly when Win 3.1 came out, it sold millions of copies. People stood in line for Win 95, it created the monopoly.

Marketing maybe, monopoly, no. Either way, It helped bring computing to the masses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You could be mistaking "popularity" with "monopoly."

Microsoft already had a monopolistic position, at least OS wise, by the late 80s. MS had some ruthless, and indeed monopolistic, licensing terms with PC OEMs all through that decade. To the point that by the late 80s, PCs not running DOS were rarer than hen's teeth.

A big deal of the success of Win 3.1 and 95 was due to the status of DOS as the (forced) defacto standard OS for the PC space.

Reply Parent Score: 5

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

MIcrosoft didn't have a monopoly when Win 3.1 came out, it sold millions of copies. People stood in line for Win 95, it created the monopoly.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/600488.stm

False error messages

Beta testers of Windows found that if they were using DR-DOS, this was detected and false error messages were generated.

Microsoft's encrypted code to disguise what it had done was unravelled by Geof Chappell in England, who commented at the time that "the only error' is that the user is running Windows with someone else's version of DOS."


This is why Windows should never be included in any list for greatest software - This anti-competitive behaviour of Microsoft's is what lead them to dominate - Windows has always been a POS, make no mistake only reason why 7 was half way decent is because of the explosion of OSX in the west (developed countries) and Linux in the east / developing countries after the failures of rubbish like vista.

Its a common misconception that without Microsoft we wouldn't have a computer in every home - this is complete baloney Microsoft would love you to believe this.

They had nothing to do with it Compaq reverse engineered the IBM Bios (I think? - someone did) Which meant generic oems started popping up all over the place - Microsoft was just the right bully at the right time to take advantage of it, otherwise it would have been the guy behind the Original DOS, before MS bought QDOS, or D.R. Dos or BeOS or OS/2 or FreeBSD/Unix and we would probably be in a place where computers would be seen as very reliable and the desktop market place would be full of healthy competition spurring on innovation.

Microsoft has done nothing but spend billions Marketing shite to the masses and holding back technology their contribution to Networking and the Internet was NetBUI FFS, an unroutable dog shit protocol. Yeah I can see how they made the list - Thom I'm sorry but your wrong here.

Edited 2014-05-04 09:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Quick clarification:

Your argument stands with OS/2, and BeOS. They wanted to be hardware agnostic and sell to OEMS, so consumers could buy computers from a variety of them. Microsoft's anti competitive behavior did affect them to a huge degree. The biggest barrier to owning a computer in the win 3.1 days was the cost. Having multiple hardware vendors competing helped drive that cost down.

For Atari, Mac, Amiga... Well they only sold the OS on the hardware they made ( Ignoring the power mac clones for a second *). They were expensive, and had a lot of vendor lock in.


* I think the mac clones were a great idea, implemented too late.

Reply Parent Score: 5