If Microsoft never existed...

Proxy

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1869093,00.asp

What do you think the world would be like if MS never "came to power"?

zilog_jones

Wow that was a lame story. I really don't think computer technology progressed so quickly solely because of MS's dominance of x86-based OSes. If the IBM PC never took off like it did, some other system would have become the industry standard instead, like the Mac or MSX.

art

Had Microsoft not existed we'd probably be in a better place really, the Apple machines in the mid-eighties were fantastic little things, which still work for some people! Microsoft has mostly stymied growth and creativity in IT circles. There's very little software you can point to that is actually a pure Microsoft innovation or creation, almost everything they've had success in has been bought in so... all that stuff would have been done anyway, with or without Microsoft...

Microsoft also deliberately hampered development of OS2 which, at the time, could have been a true advancement in the OS field. OS2 could have arrived years earlier than it did, which would have pressurised Apple into better multi-tasking and we could have had two advanced OSes existing in the mid-nineties instead of that defecation of code that was Windows 95.

hobie

I rem my first pc .... a Sinclair zx80 ..... connected to a telly but $$$$ all software ....

then an Apple II ..... a joy with Visicalc but oh the limits of visicalc after a while ....

then someone came along with a Super Expander for Visi and took us all another step along the road ....

then Lotus .... then Excel and loads more viable software to match more powerfull PC's .....

I'll never complain about MS ..... good luck to them and all their competitors ...

Cake Fiend

As much as we all love to hate the evil MS, I think it's petty and foolish to deny that they had a significant hand in the popularity of home computers. Apple were never as aggressive in the marketing department as MS, so the idea that there would be a Mac in every home is not realistic IMO. Microsoft were experts in convicing people to buy a computer they probably didn't even need. Also, Apple's attitude toward computer security is about the same as MS, believe it or not. You just didn't hear as much about the flaws in MacOS due to its relative inpopularity.

Then there are the unplanned benefits to the computer industry The growing popularity of Linux as a desktop operating system can be partly attributed to users looking for a better system than Windows. I find the general public's knowledge (or at least awareness of) computer security has come along a lot in the past few years.

art

I've no idea how "inpopular" Apple were (sounds positive anyhow ) but not sure where you get the idea that their attitude to security is the same as Microsoft's - this is the company who have built their OS on the most secure core available after all, compared to Microsoft who, still - even in their next generation OS - are trying to get people to use the suicide machine that is Active X.

Anyhow, when was the debate about "popularity". If your argument is that Microsoft have a great marketing department then fine, it's impossible to argue against the fact that it has been only through the power of marketing they've been successful company - I was considering their contribution to IT development which, in the whole, has been negative.

Cake Fiend

art wrote:

this is the company who have built their OS on the most secure core available after all

After how many years? And does this excuse the length of time it takes them to plug serious security holes? Bear in mind that Apple very possibly only released the patches included in the (pay-for) Panther upgrade for free after widespread public outrage. Also, Apple refuse to even discuss unremedied security issues at the best of times. Sound like any other company we know? At least Microsoft can hide behind the closed-source nature of their code (theoretically only a small number of people will know how to exploit a security vulnerability), but once a vulnerability is discovered in open-source software, every crax0r on the planet can start working on an exploit.

A solid foundation is pretty worthless if you're not going to keep that standard up.

EOA_Mushy

Didnt bill gates buy the 1st installation or version of what ms dos was based on off seattle computers...
Knowing that ibm were in the market for an OS he licienced the newly bought os to them. There fore MS has been a marketing venture from the start... Its been a success, no?

Capt'n Midnight

Yeah Bill swore blind he had an OS BEFORE he bought QDOS from seattle university.

If so many things had happened there would be no microsoft (top of my head lots of others)

* Bill getting caught dumpster diving and sued for copyright ( at least 60 years before those copyrights expire )
* IBM being allowed to develop the OS in house buy the courts
* Mr CP/M not taking a flying lesson/taking the piss when IBM can to call
* Seattle Uni not selling QDOS
* Visicalc pattenting the spread sheet
* Xerox patenting all of their Palo Alto (SP) stuff
* Fast Crack down on Illegal DOS contract
* US legal system making any of the fines proportional to damage caused
* so many companies not selling the Crown Jewels for empty promises

If no Microsoft then the following products would still exist since they were bought in - off the top of my head the real list is longer than the list of stuff developed in house.
* DOS - QDOS
* Windows NT - IBM co partners and Head hunting from DEC
* IE ( SpyGlass)
* MicrosoftAntiSpyware ( Giant )
* Double Space etc (Stacker)
* Backup Dos6/Windows 3.11/NT/2000
* Terminal services
* Visio
* Apple not having done a deal on Windows 1.0

Not forgetting the products that were blatently copied like the GUI - why did windows 1.0-3.11 only use one mouse button when all PC mice before then had two buttons ?

Imagine if you ordered a PC from Dell with Red Hat Linux on it and then finding out that Dell had to pay microsoft for the copy of windows that could have gone on the PC and you having to pay EXTRA for the copy of Red Hat and Red Hat not getting any compensation because the whole thing taking years to go to court and Red Hat not being able to sell many copies of Red Hat because of the extra cost.

"Dos ain't done till Lotus won't run"

Imagine you having a best of breed DOS app and finding out that Windows is to be preinstalled on all new machines. Then imagine that Windows documentation missing so many sections that you end up having to write loads of extra code. And then you can't sell it because Word will be released in 3 months time. And Word will be so much faster because they have all the documentation and can use windows routines that you have to emulate.

Imagine you have a great top 3 product and microsoft offer you a lumpsum now and a royalty for every copy they sell. And then they give it away free so you get no royalties so you can't finance any other products and none of you competitiors can sell stuff because the other product is $0 and preinstalled (illegally) on all new machines. One stone, all the birds.

Imagine a company whose stock is worth $15. Microsoft give them a loan of $150. The shares double to $30 and $450 million profit is made selling shares on the same day. Imagine Microsft will get the loan back. Imagine Microsoft don't own any of those shares ( I can't )

So no Microsoft then = Lots less hassle over Staking out Intellectual property and a lot more consumer rights .

CP/M would be the desktop OS of choice at first as long as they didn't price it out of the markted. Concurrent CP/M with us a year earlier because of demand. Lots of home PC OS's could have stepped into the gap - look at the Software for the BBC or the Amiga's or Atari's or Maybe QDOS would have happened with a BSD type license. Linux would still have happened unless there was a type of UNIX at a very affordable price.

The 1MB dos limit would have been broken earlier. If the IBM PC hadn't taken off then we might be using Motorola or Zilog 32 processors instead of the Brain damaged early intel ones and so been worried about the 16MB limit (more than enough to get a GUI )

Apple would still have their niche - ask any Amiga fan boy about that one - they priced themselves out of the cheaper end of the market and so would never be dominant.

If the developers could write software for 10 different types of home computer in the 80's then moving on to a variety of similar PC's with different OS's would not have been a biggie - look at the number of windows PDA versions around - so it would not have been a huge problem if WinTel hadn't won. And all that BS about consistant user interface is just BS. Microsoft have proven that by being inconsistant acrosss versions of windows or across the apps in the office suite F3 is search and F5 is refresh :rolleyes: Back in the days of DOS it was F1 for Help, F2 save, F3 save as, F10 Quit - and that was across most products no matter who made them.

when there was competition there were choices - WordStar / Word Perfect / Perfect Writer / Sidekick (lite WP features) / many many more

IIRC the only uncontested innovation microsoft are universally regareded of coming up with themselves (apart from negative aspects like OEM license) was BOB. In short we would be years ahead.

When Microsoft started the price of the OS was about 3% of the PC. Now a retail copy of XP Pro costs more than an entry level PC. By the time you add on a retail copy of Office you could buy a respectable box instead.

High Spec 386's used to sell for Three grand - Real Pounds , they were litterly a 1/10th the price of a House in Dundalk. PC's are now 1/1,000th the price of a House. Microsoft haven't dropped prices at all.

If PC's had stagnated then most office work could be still carried out on a PC with Concurrent CP/M, Lotus 123, WordPerfect, dBase with a Novell Server.

Capt'n Midnight

VM any day now !
DEC had micro-Vaxen back then that could do all that.

MAC using Mosaic as a browser , they had HyperText before the internet became popular, Hell they have their own Class A block of IP addresses.

hobie

DEC had micro-Vaxen back then that could do all that.

....the things we did with a Micro Vax 20 or more years ago ..... I often think half of what we do today on the net was being done on the Vax all those years ago ... instant messages ...chat .... posted pages .... mail ..... etc etc .... it was all there ....

art

God that made depressing reading Capt'n Midnight. I think I try block out how much has gone wrong with IT in the last 20 years and how much of the blame lies with Bill Gates, but you've fairly well documented it there

art

Sico wrote:

After how many years? And does this excuse the length of time it takes them to plug serious security holes? Bear in mind that Apple very possibly only released the patches included in the (pay-for) Panther upgrade for free after widespread public outrage. Also, Apple refuse to even discuss unremedied security issues at the best of times. Sound like any other company we know? At least Microsoft can hide behind the closed-source nature of their code (theoretically only a small number of people will know how to exploit a security vulnerability), but once a vulnerability is discovered in open-source software, every crax0r on the planet can start working on an exploit.

A solid foundation is pretty worthless if you're not going to keep that standard up.

I'm not sure what you are referrring to there initially. There was one security vunerability on the Mac OS which the Gates sponsored press went ape about because Apple took a whole three months to patch. This vunerability could give you root access but only if you had local access - ie you had to be physically with the computer at the time. The Apple OS is not Open Source either so no idea what you are on about there towards the end but the bottom line is - is there a single virus or trojan out there that can attack Macs at present?