Though Microsoft is the behemoth that everyone loves to hate, the computing world actually owes a lot to Bill Gates and co. And though it’s possible that someone else would have blazed the trail to “a PC on every desktop,” in our world, it was Microsoft that did it. Update: Now with page breaks! (My fault — David)
Computers have been around for decades now, even centuries, if you include the Abacus, which I imagine, although debatable, could be considered the original computer. The ENIAC was the first electronic computer. Built in the 1940’s, the machine itself was massive and powered by vacuum tubes. It did little more than the Abacus in a sense that it was designed for numerical calculations. At the time it was a great achievement. No one but top military personnel and scientists had access to it. By today’s standards it would be nothing more than a simple calculator. By comparison, today any child can go to the public library and have access to a computer that is thousands of times more powerful.
Unless you have been living behind closed doors and shuttered windows you’ve no doubt seen the articles and debates about the competition between GNU/Linux and the Microsoft Windows Operating System. Which system is better? Both camps claim to have the better OS. This may actually be the truth of the whole matter. No single Operating system is going to be the best fit for all tasks.
I personally am not a Microsoft advocate. I urge people on a daily basis to use alternative Open Source software when I see an opportunity, such as OpenOffice and Firefox. Both of these programs are available on the Windows platform as well as various others. It’s no big deal to install and use Firefox, but trying to get people to abandon their OS in favor of a system they may never have heard of could be like a mission out of a James Bond movie, with more drama than a daytime soap opera. Certain issues that surround Free and Open Source Software must still be evaluated, such as patents and Intellectual Property. These issues cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
However, in all fairness, and to keep history straight, one must acknowledge Microsoft’s contribution to the computing industry. Bill Gates had a goal in mind. That goal was to put a Windows based computer on every desktop. He has, for the most part, succeed in his endeavor. At last count, MS Windows, in some form or another, accounted for more than 90% of the desktop market. This figure is slowly starting to decline as the use and acceptance of the Open Source Operating System GNU/Linux Rises. Microsoft is primarily responsible for the proliferation of a ‘point and click’ computing system built on relatively inexpensive hardware.
It’s not necessarily because Microsoft had a superior product. In the early days, Apple computers were the dominant force in desktop computing. But Apple, like all other computer vendors before, were interested in selling a package of hardware and software. Microsoft’s early position as an OS provider to IBM, and its later decision to focus on software and let commodity hardware vendors fight over ever-decreasing profits from hardware, was the primary factor in driving down the cost of personal computers. Hardware vendors competed on price, but “the PC” was advanced not by this chaotic gaggle of vendors, but my Microsoft, above the fray.
Add to this Microsoft’s formidable marketing ability and ruthless competitive practices, and the Windows platform rose to near absolute dominance in a decade.
Microsoft did not, as we all know, invent computing, but what they did do, as stated earlier, was bring the computer into the home of the average Joe and Jane. It’s ironic how it was Microsoft that made computers affordable and now there’s the whole debate over TCO/ROI (Total cost of ownership/Return on investment) and licensing fees.
The Redmond bunch is always examined under a microscope. Everyone watches, from financial analysts to security experts. They are sometimes portrayed unfairly. For instance, some say that Microsoft “stole” the windowing system from Apple and they will tell you how Apple was able to hire engineers and license technology from Xerox, the originators of the windowing system. In my opinion these are subtle differences. Microsoft may have cribbed ideas from Apple, and may have abused their partnership, but let’s look at the evolution of KDE and GNOME. Didn’t they base their windowing environments, to some extent, on Windows? It must be realized that for the computing industry to continue to grow ideas will forever be appropriated, even in the world of proprietary software.
Today, security is one of the biggest issues concerning computing. With viruses and spyware rampant, security has become big business. When MS was developing Windows not even they could foresee the popularity of the Internet. At the time, the Internet was nothing more than a bunch of message boards. Billions of dollars did not flow over the wires daily. At the time, network security was a minor issue. Without Microsoft, the Internet would not have proliferated nearly as quickly. Once again MS did not invent it, but they enabled a huge amount of access to it. If not for Microsoft ,thousand of companies might not exist today.
Microsoft did not only develop an OS, they developed some excellent office applications, some of which revolutionized . They delivered some so-called “Killer application” Programs that were specifically designed to fill a void.
A vast number of modern day GNU/Linux and Mac users were introduced to computing through some version of Windows. They used MS products before they converted to their present day OS of choice. Their basic computer skills were honed on a Windows box. If not for that prior introduction, would they now be effective computer users? and if so to what extent?
Linus Torvalds developed the Linux Kernel. It was not very useful by itself. Thanks to input from Open Source developers, The Free Software Foundation, and the GNU Project, Linux evolved into the backbone of the useful, robust system that we have today. But Linux was originally developed as a way to run a Unix-like system on the kind of commodity Intel hardware that was easily available to everyone, thanks in large part to Microsoft. Had their been no widely available, “open” PC standard, Linux would have had no foothold.
If they did not have Windows to compete with, would the Gnu project be as successful as it is? Isn’t competition with Microsoft the primary driving force behind its success? Furthermore, even if the GNU Project was developed to the same level of efficiency as it currently stands, (without the existence of Microsoft) would any GNU/Linux vendor have the ability to produce the marketing power of Microsoft enabling them to bring computing to the masses?
A lot of the desktop versions of GNU/Linux we use today are Microsoft look-a-likes and function similarly to Windows. An inexperienced user may not even notice the difference between WindowsXP and distributions such as Lycoris, Linspire formerly Lindows and ELX (Everyone’s Linux) These distros and several others, deliberately copy a Windows scheme. Providing similar desktop backgrounds and familiar icons to those in the Windows world. These upstart Linux distributions are therefore able to ride on Windows’ coat-tails, and provide a computing experience that people are familiar with, thanks to the consolidation of the PC industry that Microsoft effected.
Like it or not The Mighty Giant known as Microsoft stood at the foot of the unknown road and blazed a trail. All of the Desktop OSes we have today owe a dept to the present monopolistic, proprietary King of the desktop. Given the fact that MS toppled Apple and squashed IBM’s OS/2 before it even had a chance, no one could say with absolute certainty what desktop computing, the Internet, or the computing industry itself would look like today if not for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.
Would it be a dry, barren, lifeless, wasteland, or would the fruits of the labor of GNU/Linux, Apple or even IBM have blossomed into a computing system we could never imagine. The world will never know.
Once the GUI wars began, though, things changed. Too bad the 16-bit graphical shell called Windows seemed to appeal to the most people. 
If it weren’t for them, we’d all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.
Is not fair to thank just one man, there are many who made it possible.
How about “Thanks, Microsoft. Now please go away.”
The author should consider the use of paragraphs — it will make his article easier to read.
And ending it with, “We may never know,” doesn’t exactly reinforce his point.
“An inexperienced user may not even notice the difference between WindowsXP and distributions such as Lycoris, Linspire formerly Lindows and ELX (Everyone’s Linux) These distros and several others, deliberately copy a Windows scheme. Providing similar desktop backgrounds and familiar icons to those in the Windows world. These upstart Linux distributions are therefore able to ride on Windows’ coat-tails, and provide a computing experience that people are familiar with, thanks to the consolidation of the PC industry that Microsoft effected. ”
this makes sense from a migration aspect though gnome and many other Desktop environments and work environments are not mere clones…
“If it weren’t for them, we’d all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.”
os/2 wasnt a bad operating system to be using..
It should also be noted that UI itself in different operating systems are not much different from each other anymore.
Mac OS X is immediately familiar if you have ever used any GUI. so is anything like CDE or syllable.
The reason why everyone started using PCs was because hardware was cheap and capable enought. Microsoft put the operative system, but any other company (apple, ibm) could have put theirs.
If hardware were too expensive and it wasn’t able to draw windows 95-like desktops or it were to slow windows 95 would have never succeed. Hardware was the key, along with it’s capatibility to run older programs (msdos programs)
I was using a machine that had OS/2 on it today at work, OS/2’s not dead 🙂
Hmm .. let’s see ..
Mirosoft has how many billions in cash/rainy day money??
Bill Gates is the second richest man in the world (after that IKEA guy)
Paul Allen is a billionaire
And Microsoft has minted more millionaires than any other company I know.
Shouldn’t Microsoft be the one thanking its tax payers?
That Microsoft is at the top right now is due less to its own competence, and more to the incompetence of its competitors.
If OS/2 had succeeded, people would be complaining about IBM ( and I very much doubt IBM would be selling a cheap OS ). Atari, Commodore both failed not so much because of competition, but more because of their own executives. And Apple isn’t in top spot right now because it is not a software company, but a hardware retailer; it could not supply the entire market with machines, and it certainly does not want to supply the marktet for low-end machines.
We’d have been better off if they had the monopoly.
Mmm, not that bad an article… However, I think that the revolution that took place (getting a computer into everyone’s home) wasn’t dependant on MS at all– If MS hadn’t been there, Apple would’ve done it, or, Be for that matter.
PS: Maybe Eugenia or David can throw in some p tags?
My comment above doesn’t mean I hate Microsoft, nor do I respect Gates any less.
My point is that whoever was at the top, the little whiners would try to put them down, and that often competitors die not because of competition, but because of their own faults.
but please give us some paragraphs.
The article is simply unreadable now.
the first electronic computer was the Z3(built with relays), the first computer with tubes was the ENIAC
“The reason why everyone started using PCs was because hardware was cheap and capable enought. Microsoft put the operative system, but any other company (apple, ibm) could have put theirs. ”
The question is obvious. Why didn’t they? Why didn’t IBM trounce MS? Why didn’t apple destroy MS? They were both big players with big pockets, lots of marketting people, connections…What made MS succeed above them?
The article points to the fact that MS focussed only on software and took advantage on what ultimately became on open PC hardware market, while many others were still stuck on hte hardware/software package with servicing. It wanted people to have their own PCs, not some terminal that took everything off some server.
Who knows if the unix mentality had won out, would hardware be as cheap? Would we have ended up with a client architecture? Would the inherent complexity of a networked OS hindered the acceptance of PCs to the masses? Would the inherent network abilities have propelled the internet to be bigger and faster, and more connected than ever before?
As the article ends of saying. We don’t know what might have been? We do know that many big names had a chance to drive computing to the masses. We do know MS was the one that did it. We do know what is and part of the success of what is…is due to Microsoft.
The dominance of superbly marketed but otherwise mediocre MS software did *some* good, actually.
After all, it was MS bloat that demanded ever more capable hardware to make it run well enough, thus making powerful PCs cheap and accessible. On the other hand, the sound of fans under my desk, struggling to cool my system down is getting kind of annoying, lately.
Diversity is always good and neccessary. We still do have it, but looking back at the 1980’s and early 90’s the diversity and distinctivness of personal and home computers was just a joy to look at.
I, for one especially miss the now virtually extinct species of home computers. Those systems could teach modern PCs a lesson or two on what a computer as an appliance should look like. Easy, stable, lightweight, always ready to go. They’ll be back!
Apple and IBM got the computers on the Desktops but still Joe and Jane average don’t all have computers. It’s going to take something entirely different to bring computing to the common man.
> My point is that whoever was at the top, the little whiners
> would try to put them down, and that often competitors die
> not because of competition, but because of their own faults.
Not all companies which are in a dominant position were also convicted (not just accused) of federal anti-trust violations in the process of getting there.
Microsoft has indeed been the market winner. It’s just too bad that they weren’t content to let market forces make the decision for them. Instead, they engaged in a plethora of well-documented activities (some blatantly illegal, others ethically questionable, a few admittedly quite brillant) in order to overcome their competition and dominate the desktop marketplace.
It’s sad that we’ll never know what might have happened if other companies would have been able to offer their products to the public and have them judged based on their merits. I suspect the desktop computing world would be a somewhat more secure and functional world today…
We would had more innovation in the PC arena if M$ didnt choke all compition thru its monopoly. Thanks to Java and Linux/OSS/GNU we have some relief. I wish OS2 was around then we wouldnt have suffered so much of BSOD and security issue of windows. Windows is the worst OS out there.
Thanks, Xerox PARC
http://www.parc.xerox.com/about/history/default.html
If we understand that m$ maked the computers cheaper and easier to use, I still dont know how they did it. Were they also the people who made the light bulb cheaper? Or cars cheaper?
Through the normal course of supply and demand and miniturisation computers were always going to be cheap. M$ were in the right place with the right contracts at the right time.
Today you still cannot purchase a computer without a M$ licence due to their forsight in contract licencing. When I spec up servers, more than half the price is software and client access licences. When i spec up new mid range workstations, half the price is m$ software licences (office, windows, CAL for filesharing and exchange). If they wanted to make computers cheaper, they would drop their licence charges (ie tax) and make the most expensive part the hardware.
Also, Paragraphs would make the article easy to read. I stopped reading it after the 3rd line. I’ve read these comments before. Its funny that nowadays there are alot less m$ zealots around.
os/2 wasnt a bad operating system to be using..
Neither was AmigaOS. Personally, i did not found my OS/2 WARP version particulary stable. Most of the time, i hang around in MSDOS as well.
PS: Indeed, paragraphs. One important aspect i urge a writer to become aware is to reflect how the reader will experience the article. Thats possible in some extend; readability is one of them. Especially important if you try to reach a wide audience.
You should thank Intel, and other companies who produced and designed affordable computer parts! Not the people who supplied the software, to which there is better competition.
You absolutely have to be kidding; this is so insulting to every computer engineer (and I’m a computer science major!) out there; I can’t believe you let this be posted Eugenia.
Honestly, this is offensive. You’re not only giving undue credit, you’re stealing it from those who deserve it!
By Darius
If it weren’t for them, we’d all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.
LOL! We would be better off.
Jim
Yes, MS has pushed the PC into un-parallel growth. They will also push the 64 bit chips to the mass’.
But, they should be admonished for various underhanded deeds:
1) bundling IE with an OS to prevent other browsers from completing.
2) Providing mediocre software at exorbitant prices
3) Not shipping OS’ secure by default.
4) Not using open file formats to prevent competition for entering the market. MS should use an open format and let the best product win. Of course, that will not happen because its not in their best interest.
I could go on but what would be the point?
The Amiga had autoconfig in 1987 while the PC had to struggle with a mess of manual jumper settings and that joke called PnP on ISA cards. So we had the worst possible hardware I’ve ever seen coupled with a junk OS called MS-DOS. Until the advent of PCI-based computers and BSD and Linux this so-called personal computer was a total piece of sh*t. So no, I don’t thank Microsoft.
Author Note:
I apologize for the the way this article is presented. It was submitted in paragraph form. I dont know what happened. I do know that Eugenia in on Holiday, and has other staff taking care of business. Once again I apologize.
Kevin Russo
If it weren’t for them, we’d all be running Amigas right now, or maybe OS/2.
Commodore and IBM killed their respective OSes far more effectively than Microsoft could ever have dreamed of doing.
Microsoft won the world the day IBM signed a contract stating that every computer they sold should come bundled with an MS operating system. Luckily for Microsoft, the i368 became a wild success, securing DOS as the mainstream OS.
I remember the late 80s and early 90s, when my father had Macs and the few of my friends that had computers at home had PCs running games in DOS and a few simple apps in Win 3.1. The Macs felt truely superiour, both in the hardware and software aspects, although illegally sharing games was easier on the Intel platform.
I’m not even sure Microsoft had to create Windows to “beat” Apple. People would probably be fine with the strictly single-tasking MS-DOS, using fine products such as WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. It was, however, fortunate for MS that they had taken the step up to a graphical shell when they had to compete with IBM’s OS/2 and others later on.
IMO, Microsoft didn’t win the Desktop Market with Windows, but rather with MS-DOS in the early days. They should thank IBM, as well as the people that bought IBM’s products.
I had just edited this, then I remembered I needed to be at my son’s Christmas presentation at pre-school, so I just posted it and ran without double-checking. (Dumb!). So a hearty apology to everyone who slogged through it witout paragraphs.
Author Note:
Mistakes happen. Thank you David for correcting the problem.
Kevin Russo
Bill Gates stole computer time to produce his BASIC interpreter. Bill then bought a cheap ripoff of CP/M from another company and licensed it to IBM. Continuing with this theme Microsoft stole Apple’s GUI (yeah I know they took it from PARC). Microsoft proceeded to make unstable and unsecure software with a habit of being incredibly late. Microsoft also probably has the largest “library” of vaporware. Why am I supposed to thank them again? Because they made their own software the standard at the expense of others? Only now are people really pushing for open documents and other standards. If the OS business wasn’t so monolithic we might have had these things long ago, and maybe, just maybe, someone else would have had the incentive to actually build a better system, with complete compatibility. Instead everyone who doesn’t use MS products are stuck reverse-engineering hardware and software and then being treated like criminals for just trying to get our stuff to work. If anything I think Bill set us back ten years or so.
The question is obvious. Why didn’t they? Why didn’t IBM trounce MS?
IBM screwed it up. They never treated “home computing” seriously and never really tried to sell OS/2.
Why didn’t apple destroy MS?
Apple priced themselves out of the “mass market”. People think Macs are expensive now, but they’re dirt cheap compared to historical pricing.
They were both big players with big pockets, lots of marketting people, connections…What made MS succeed above them?
They were cheaper and better supported.
Who knows if the unix mentality had won out, would hardware be as cheap? Would we have ended up with a client architecture? Would the inherent complexity of a networked OS hindered the acceptance of PCs to the masses? Would the inherent network abilities have propelled the internet to be bigger and faster, and more connected than ever before?
These are interesting questions, but ultimately technology is cyclical. For example, there’s quite a shift at the moment back to the “dumb terminal” model of computing and even things like games are becoming reliant on the client-server model (ie: Steam & HL2).
Microsoft has indeed been the market winner. It’s just too bad that they weren’t content to let market forces make the decision for them. Instead, they engaged in a plethora of well-documented activities (some blatantly illegal, others ethically questionable, a few admittedly quite brillant) in order to overcome their competition and dominate the desktop marketplace.
It’s worth pointing out the difference between standard business tactics (ie: “market forces”) and “monopoly abuse” is nothing more than a largely arbitrary legal judgement – and that you don’t actually *know* you’re committing “monopoly abuse” until that judgement is made.
Don’t forget: NT, 2000 and XP all are based on OS/2.
Well, at least NT 3.5 was mostly based on OS/2. There are still some lines of code that IBM “owns.”
Quote:
“Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0, then known as “NT OS/2″. However, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
I never understood some of the claims people have against MS. What is so wrong about bundling a browser into one’s OS? If I make the software, its MY right to do what I want with it, and if that so includes bundling an internet browser, an office program, etc so be it, ITS MY RIGHT.
In regards to providing “mediocre software at exorbitant prices” that is related to the issue above. Being my software, I can charge any damn price I want for it, even a million if I am so inclined. That does not mean I also have the power to force people to buy it and in fact they probably wouldn’t, and I would be bid out of the marketplace. If you don’t want MS software, dont buy it, it’s that simple. Go buy your own parts from a computer shop and build your own machine. Last time I checked there was no Microsoft guard standing outside of Bestbuy preventing you from doing just that. Regarding the security issue – buying a piece of software is similar to buying others goods in the sense that there is no guarentee that the good will meet your need. You could request the developers/manufacturers to change their product but you have no right to force somebody to make the good as you see fit at the price point that you desire.
Another point I’d like to address is the claim that “MS doesn’t let people compete, it doesn’t let the market work, it is a monolopy, etc… To this I would have to ask you a question – what is your definition of a free market and of competition? A free market does not in any way guarentee that your company will not be put out of business. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, in a long run free market economy the companies that are inefficient will be bid out of the marketplace and the companies that are more efficient will survive. This in turn also lowers the consumer’s cost because their dollars are not spent on inefficient products. Your definition of competition seems to exclude just that – competition. The concept of competition relies on the concept of winning. The idea of competition in which there is no clear winner is absurd, and blasts the idea of competition away. If you ever operated a small lemonade stand as a child the same principle is in effect. If you catch wind that your competitor across the street is going to lower his price, you may choose to lower your price even further. I suppose by your reasoning that the other person should say that this is a ruthless and unfair monolopizing practice and run to their mommy (or the government) and complain and try to pass laws to see that you are destroyed. The only way to truly monolopize a market is to ask for government intervention into the market – but that would require a whole seperate topic.
Thank you MS!
For some humor: http://savethehumans.com/stupidity/how_to/microsoft/index.shtml
You should thank Intel, and other companies who produced and designed affordable computer parts!
They wouldn’t have produced those parts if there wasn’t software out there to make them useful.
“The question is obvious. Why didn’t they? Why didn’t IBM trounce MS? ”
Marketing incompetence.
I really don’t buy that “microsoft made possible to have a PC in each home”. But Microsoft was put in every home PC out there, that’s true
When Microsoft was playing with MSDOS, Apple already had a operative system with a user-friendly GUI.
If “user friendliness” is the reason why Windows succeed, *WHY* people kept buying PCs with MSDOS when Mac’s where available with nice GUIs? Perhaps people liked more the MSDOS obscure command line than Mac’s user-friendly GUI? I mean, graphic interfaces were available *years* before windows come out…
The right answer is: PCs were cheaper than Macs. That’s the only reason. People ignored the user-friendly Apple computers because the equivalent commandline-based PC’s were cheaper. Any OS maker that would have put a cheap OS with a nice GUI in the Peecees before Microsoft would have kicked them, and that OS *would* have happened regardless of Microsoft. IBM managers just needed a kick in their butt to realize they could sell OS/2 as a “desktop OS”, however they didn’t and so Microsoft won the market. I don’t really understand why people says we should “thank microsoft”. Thanks for what? For being good at marketing?
If anything, I’ll thank Intel because their price/performance ratio was great. Cheap enought, fast enought, that was the only reason PCs took the world, and that’s the reason they’re taking the server world today with the amd opteron, except that the server market is already there and the user one not.
We would have had a PC in every house *even* if Microsoft would have kept developing MSDOS and no OS maker would have launched a “GUI desktop OS” for the general public. I will NEVER thank Microsoft for putting “a PC in every home”. It’s just not true, hardware price *was* the true key.
If we understand that m$ maked the computers cheaper and easier to use, I still dont know how they did it.
By selling a dirt cheap [D]OS separate from specific hardware, targeted at a largely open platform built from easily available off-the-shelf parts and fostering a _massive_ developer community.
M$ were in the right place with the right contracts at the right time.
Undoubtedly. So was every other company who was the driving force behind an industry.
Today you still cannot purchase a computer without a M$ licence due to their forsight in contract licencing.
Rubbish. It’s trivial to purchase PCs without _any_ OS and always has been.
Just because you can’t buy one from Dell and Compaq, doesn’t mean you can’t buy one.
When I spec up servers, more than half the price is software and client access licences.
Entirely possible. Hardly an issue restricted to Microsoft, either.
When i spec up new mid range workstations, half the price is m$ software licences (office, windows, CAL for filesharing and exchange).
You are free not to purchase them.
Added to that, if ~AU$1000 is “half the cost of the machine”, it’s not a “mid range workstation”.
If they wanted to make computers cheaper, they would drop their licence charges (ie tax) and make the most expensive part the hardware.
Computers already _are_ cheap. You are free not to purchase their software if you don’t want to.
“Bill Gates had a goal in mind. That goal was to put a Windows based computer on every desktop.”
Wow, and all the while i thought he was just trying to squeeze as much money outta everyone as he possibly can! How wrong am I.
Thanks Monopoly….Bill you should be on the Monopoly Board game box..I still hate Dos…hated it from day one…….
Microsoft arguably did do a great job, but in the end wouldn’t every company they ruthlessly crushed have done so also ?
Not just Amiga and OS/2, but even before that Gem and Geos which were more advanced than Ms offerings of the time. Ms really did very little innovating, they make good, but not great, products that really just take an existing concept and run with it (the windowing os, the office suite, application scripting, etc) Not to mention that the biggest killer app of the last 2 decades – the internet – would have happened regardless since it originated on Unix.
All in all they made a decent job of it, but I prefer people who don’t walk over dead bodies to make a buck.
Thanks? Not from me. Bill Gates and Microsoft got where they are today with a pint of good marketing and bushel of good luck. Plus a lot of stuff that got them convicted as felons.
http://steve-parker.org/articles/microsoft/
for finally putting out a stable consumer OS (XP), .NET, and good dev tools.
No thanks for giving us the clusterfuck that is win32 api and MFC.
I’ll remain neutral on IE since it quickly blew away the piece of shit that is Netscape, but then stagnated for whatever reason.
An interesting point of view, even more readable with the paragraphs
Perhaps its false to assume, but reading your article I get the impression that you started using computers with Windows. Thats OK, but one can and should not “judge” Windows without any “historical” knowledge about the computer industry. Looking back I cant see anything we should MS be thankful for. IMHO they where just at the right place at the right time – selling “their” DOS to IBM. If we have to thank someone in the computer industry its either IBM or Intel for the PC Platform, perhaps even AMD/Cyrix for competition in the CPU market.
Bill Gates, as a business man, had one vision only: to sell his product and make money. Lots of it. And sometimes with methods not only morally questionable but straight illegal. Lets not forget that MS has violated several laws and – as a company – is a convicted criminal. But thats only one aspect why people just love to hate M$.
AZ
It’s worth pointing out the difference between standard business tactics (ie: “market forces”) and “monopoly abuse” is nothing more than a largely arbitrary legal judgement – and that you don’t actually *know* you’re committing “monopoly abuse” until that judgement is made.
Ever heard the phrase “Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law” ? Some of the things Ms pulled were just so dirty I seriously don’t believe even they could have been ignorant of the illegality/immorality. Then again who can understand MBA’s these days, they’d probably sell their mothers into slavery if it would make their stock go up.
Don’t forget: NT, 2000 and XP all are based on OS/2.
Well, at least NT 3.5 was mostly based on OS/2.
Assuming you mean the OS/2 most people know as OS/2 2.x, and later Warp, false. OS/2 and NT have _nothing_ architecturally in common. They are separate codebases.
There are still some lines of code that IBM “owns.”
There’s a hell of lot more code Microsoft owns in OS/2 than there is code IBM owns in NT. Indeed, I’m not I’ve heard about _any_ IBM code in NT.
“Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0, then known as “NT OS/2″. However, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.”
Correct information, but used out of context. OS/2 2.x and (then) “OS/2 NT” (later renamed to Windows NT after the surprise success of Windows 3.0) are completely different OSes. Certainly, the OS that became Windows NT was originally destined to be OS/2 3.0, but it was a from-scratch project run solely by Microsoft (with ex-Digital employees Dave Cutler & Co.).
NT is _not_ a derivative of the OS/2 everyone knows.