Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being 'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.
What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow 'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.
What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM into the deal?
What do you mean Jeff? There are tons of choices out there. Like Mac, BeOS, UNIX, Linux, XWindows, FreeDOS, GEOS, GEM, OS/2, DEC, etc. How many more choices would you like?
__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
I doubt they would agree with you on that ;)
Bingo. And it's the difference between an engineering 'purist' and a pragmatist.
True. And IBM did plenty to earn the wrath.
Do you remember their MCA bus licensing plan for clone makers? You not only had to pay a license for every machine sold using it (fair enough) but you were required to retro pay a license fee for every clone you had already made since the PC came out.
They out licensed themselves because with a plan that ridiculous no one took it so MCA was shut out instead of the other way around.
Yeah. I guess they don't know that back then Microsoft was about as 'dominant' a player as a fruit fly taking on a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
That is my impression, also. Worse yet, the "Apple way" isn't necessarily the best way from a technical standpoint--it's just Apple's way. If everything they did was unquestionably superior to everyone else's way of doing things, they might have something, but that's not the case. And even if it were, most people don't care much about computers, and given a choice between a $500 machine that gets the job done and a $1500 machine that is "technically superior," they'll buy the $500 machine.
Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and root for Microsoft.
The dominant market player is always seen as the bad guy, even with respect to history; people forget that dominant market players change regularly.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
There are a lot of operating systems that could be used for ATMs, not just OS/2. Windows NT Workstation was/is popular for ATMs. I don't know what they favor today.
ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.
Besides, in a dedicated system, crashes are rare. You only need to run one application, all day long, and it's not that hard to get it to run without ever crashing.
I've never seen an ATM crash. Nor have I ever heard of ATMs running Windows 95. And there is certainly no one migrating to Windows 95 _now_--it's a dead operating system.
How about Windows NT?
For those who were not even alive at the time, Microsoft was a couple of guys practically working out of a garage in those days, and people like you were saying exactly the same things about IBM that you are saying today about Microsoft.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Microsoft won by being smarter than IBM. They certainly didn't do it with money or influence or power, since they had none of these back then.
Nobody cares.
It seems to really upset you.
That's debatable.
I was actually there, so I don't have to study it, and Microsoft was not big and bad back then. IBM was the usual target of the angry young males, followed by Apple. To some extent it depended on which company had rejected their résumés first.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
In all fairness, BeOS is dead, XWindows is not an operating system but a GUI used mostly in *nix environments, GEOS, GEM and OS/2 are effectively dead, DEC had a flavor of Unix but I'm not sure whether that exists anymore. In current OS's, there's Windows, MacOS (FreeBSD Unix based) and all the various incarnations of Linux but that's about it for the consumer desktop as far as I know.
I still use Win2K on most of my machines, though I did put a recent version of Ubuntu Linux on one of my laptops to play with and I was shocked at how far it's come in the last few years. It still has a few rough edges but it's shaping up to be a very usable operating system and definitly something I'm interested in seeing after a couple more years of polish. If someone can come up with a solid unified configuration panel, settle on a standard sound driver interface and get the Windows emulator rock solid so it supports everything MS might have some real competition. Of course I don't really see it as a fight anyway, nothing is forcing me to use any operating system in particular, so I just use those which are most appropriate for what I'm doing with each particular computer I'm doing it on. Usually the choice comes down to what applications I need to run and what specific hardware is best supported.
And in most cases, Windows is the only practical choice. However, this has nothing to do with any machiavellian manipulations on the part of Microsoft, and everything to do with the overwhelming majority of applications that run only on Windows.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
That's why they still have barely 5% of the market. They had a huge head start and they blew it.
Most dominant market players eventually become partially corrupt, mainly because people join the company who are greedier, more ambitious, and less ethical as it grows larger. Eventually the kind-hearted engineers are overruled by the marketroids and salespeople, and the revolving door of upper management.
All I recall of the MCA bus was that it went nowhere.
They made a mistake that is often one of the first symptoms of a company in decline: they depended too much on their brand, and not enough on their products. Major market players eventually get lazy and greedy and think that just stamping their well-established brand on garbage or overpriced goods will make them sell. It often works for a short time, but then people wise up, and the game is over. This often happens after the best engineers have left or have been pushed aside by the marketroids and salesmen and MBAs. You can see it happening right now at Hewlett-Packard. The leading edge of the phenomenon has started to appear at Microsoft.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
I'm curious; how is it you can type a full sentence with that boner tipping up Mom's keyboard?
...
Maybe your recollection is about the company Microsoft bought DOS from. As far as I know, the major problem IBM had with Microsoft was when Microsoft prohibited IBM from including IBM's own Lotus SmartSuite on IBM's computers. Microsoft used Windows to force IBM's compliance.
Companies don't work that way.
Programmers are locked into Windows because it's the only operating system that sells. Consumers buy Windows because programmers write for it. It's called a "positive feedback loop" that keeps Windows the desktop operating system monopoly.
Which is the lion's share of desktop computer software publishing.
Other domains?
It will keep Microsoft in the desktop computer software publishing business forever.
Prohibiting Microsoft from writing applications or favoring one software publisher over another probably would level the software playing field. I'm not sure that multiple operating systems would be a good idea. Maybe forcing Microsoft to open Windows source code could be fashioned in some way to spur innovation. How to handle the operating system maker is a good question.
...
I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech input and output. Input and output is a basic function of the operating system. To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us. Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of money. So even though speech will be part of the future personal computer (or hybrid), we will have to wait until other software companies develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it. At the same time, other companies are lazy about software development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of the same software.
:) You don't represent the vast majority of personal computer users. Your last assertion does not follow.
Like browsing the Internet. If Microsoft hadn't gotten into trouble for destroying Netscape Navigator, we might be paying for Internet Explorer too.
I would just repeat my prior statement about the operating system and office applications. I don't know where you got the idea those were a small share of the applications market.
I will be happy to compare resources on the subject.
Microsoft can buy any programmers it needs.
Windows integration helps. New users are going to use what's there.
I agree that Microsoft produces decent software for its own use and sells it to the rest of us. But competition is usually a better way to innovation.
Not in the personal computer operating system market.
and sooner or later
Switching operating systems would be massively expensive and require lots of coordination between consumers and programmers. Maybe if everyone were desperate and had powerful political/media help.
So? Microsoft had to do many things they didn't want to because IBM forced them to do so. Steve Ballmer called it riding the bear. But times have changed and IBM got a taste of their own medicine. And I believe this is only fair. Why don't you?
__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
In your opinion.
Still wondering where you got that idea.
Microsoft favors its own applications developers.
And its Office suite. Have you noticed how much a retail upgrade version of Office costs? Microsoft gets at least $100 for its Works suite.
Programmers choose the (monopoly) operating system. Consumers choose applications (except for Office applications). There are other monopolies, but they are minor in comparison to Windows and Office.
The basis would be to spur innovation. Whether it is legal or ethical is up to the government and its religious leaders I guess.
Yes, but that is not Microsoft's doing, nor does Microsoft have to do anything to maintain it. Indeed, Microsoft can't really change it, either--the company has little choice but to continue to produce OS environments that are compatible with the current Windows environment. Anything else would be a huge and extremely risky gamble, and Microsoft is now moving into that phase of a company's life when it becomes very averse to risk.
Actually, no. Only a small fraction of desktop computer software is operating systems and office-automation suites. For example, on the computer I use at home, Microsoft software represents only about 5% of the total dollar value of all the software on the computer. Which means that for every dollar Microsoft makes selling software, other companies are making about $19.
Yes. Computers are used for other things besides text processing and spreadsheets, and in virtually every other application domain, Microsoft is either non-existent or a very minor player.
Furthermore, Microsoft lacks the know-how to enter just about all of these markets; the company writes software very well, but you have to know more than just how to write software to crack a particular application market. MS did well with Office because it helped define the market by being one of the first to address it. It does fairly well with software development tools because it has to use the tools itself, and thus has learned how to build good ones. But it doesn't know how to do anything else.
Forever is a long time. It's very difficult to change the status quo in operating systems, but it has happened before, and sooner or later it will happen again. My prediction is that eventually Microsoft will push itself out of the market, by trying to force people into expensive, bloated upgrades in order to maintain its revenue stream. At some point they'll be pushed towards alternative operating systems.
If another publisher were to come up with an OS that ran Windows applications transparently and flawlessly with no significant loss of performance, the dominance of Microsoft would be severely threatened. However, that is so difficult and expensive to do technically that I'm not particularly concerned about it, and I don't think Microsoft is, either.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
There.
That depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to my example of Microsoft using Windows to prevent competition with Microsoft's applications, I believe that stifles innovation in the applications software market. I really couldn't care less about the politics. I don't care which team you are rooting for.
There's really no legal or ethical basis for such a prohibition, and it would have no effect on the market, anyway, because Microsoft isn't writing any significant applications to begin with. And Microsoft isn't significantly favoring anyone, either.
Microsoft is in the position of having a reliable cash cow in the Windows operating system, but it's also constrained by that position because even Microsoft cannot really propose a new operating system, unless it walks and talks just like the existing Windows OS. It went out on a limb with Windows NT and that was uncomfortably uncertain for years--and NT is an operating system that looks and feels just like preceding versions of Windows to users. Trying something completely new might not work at all, and with the cost of a new operating system now in the billions of dollars, it's a dangerous gamble. And these days Microsoft is becoming increasingly wary of gambling.
It's not. From a consumer standpoint, standardization on a single operating system is generally best. The only question is which operating system would be technically ideal. Windows is nice but it's probably not ideal. The competition (such as it is) is far worse, however.
There's no legal or ethical basis for this, either.
The best way to change things--if change is a good idea--is to come up with a better operating system ... and one that will run everything that Windows runs, because nobody is going to rewrite 250,000 applications overnight.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
No, he's thinking about Microsoft, a very tiny company back in those days.
During the period under discussion, Microsoft wasn't in a position to force anyone to do anything.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.