History Of Microsoft Windows

[shrapnel_indie]

If you define stole as, what in hind-sight, was sold for too little money... then I can see "stole" apply.

What utter nonsense. So you are blaming MS for buying a program from a smaller operation and it wasn't a "fair" deal because MS turned it into something better? Then what would have been a "fair" deal to you back then? Please give a specific number in current adjusted US dollars for relevance. The seller could have mandated any royalties for X amount of years. They did not.

What's next down the road? Complaints that Google paid too little for Youtube ($1.5 billion) at the time ten years ago? Complaints that DirecTV paid too little for LifeShield down the road as AT&T looks to expand it? The possibilities are endless in hindsight "deals." All that matters is that the deals were signed and both parties were happy with the deal. What, do you want the government to step in the middle of deals now?

Oh and speaking of monopolies, since when have OS X and Linux not been capable and successful alternatives to Windows/PC?

<SIGH> In the case of purchasing the OS for dirt cheap, MS isn't at fault as they just practiced the norms. "Steal" in that case was more of a "I got it for a steal" type steal.

The success of Mac OS-X (Cheap, but Apple would rather you only use it on their expensive hardware) and Linux (Totally Free) COMBINED only have maybe about 3% market share. Not exactly successful in market share. Successful in being able to survive, definitely. Alternatives to Windows? Yes, despite Linux being harder to set up for the average person.

Please relax and stop overreacting to just an opinion, not a complaint, your blood pressure will be thankful.

 

[10tacle]

<SIGH> In the case of purchasing the OS for dirt cheap, MS isn't at fault as they just practiced the norms. "Steal" in that case was more of a "I got it for a steal" type steal.

What part of both parties agreeing to the deal (including the lawyers of both parties) did you miss?

The success of Mac OS-X (Cheap, but Apple would rather you only use it on their expensive hardware) and Linux (Totally Free) COMBINED only have maybe about 3% market share.

Whose fault is that? The point is there are alternatives.

Not exactly successful in market share. Successful in being able to survive, definitely. Alternatives to Windows? Yes, despite Linux being harder to set up for the average person.

"Successful" is relative to those who want it. Real audio/video and graphics power users use Apple, not PC. The point is there *are* alternatives (again). Last time I checked, the definition of a "monopoly" is controlling a market and limiting competition. Microsoft has not done that against Apple or Linux. Apple is free to directly compete with Windows/PC if they wish. They are a different animal and a niche market. That's not MS's fault.

Please stop crying and/or overreacting to just an opinion, not a complaint, your blood pressure will be thankful.

There is only one poster here complaining with a false narrative both from a legal and free market perspective about MS "stealing" a core program leading to a major OS. Nobody could see 10-15 years into the future (well Gates could, obviously).

In the real world, when you make a deal that both parties are happy with, you sign on the dotted line, and you take the money and run, that's a done deal. Whatever happens in the future to what you sold is no longer your business. Welcome to the real world.

 

[IInuyasha74]

To intervene in this, first lets be polite to each other. It's fun to debate, not to argue.

I also wouldn't call Microsoft purchasing DOS really a steal, even then. There were multiple OSes similar to DOS at the time. IBM originally wanted an OS called CP/M, but couldn't reach a deal with that owned it. Over the years there have been many BASIC and CP/M clones that have come and gone. The original DOS was mostly created by one man even. The point is, Microsoft would have just purchased or created a similar software if it didn't reach an agreement with Seattle Computer Products. This one just took off because Microsoft had a contract with IBM to deliver a suitable OS and MS-DOS is what they delivered. As a side note, it didn't make it into the article, but Microsoft actually first licensed the OS and then bought it after it was already in use by IBM. At that point, it would have been obvious that DOS was going places and Seattle Computer Products still agreed to the deal. In retrospect to us, it looks like a steal, but in reality it wasn't.

Microsoft has been charged numerous times for its business practices, because it has tried to push others out of the market. Some like the Windows Explorer lawsuits honestly seem ridiculous to me. Internet Explorer or the Edge browser haven't been dominate in the browser market the a long time now. They hold a position in the market, but Firefox or Chrome typically have a stronger position. I'd say Linux and Apple are both fairly successful too. Apple does well enough with the sales of its devices, and Linux has a strong position in numerous other niche markets. I don't really see any possible way for either to go out. Microsoft has tried, but it jus isn't happening.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Are we going to get a history of UNIX or LINUX?

 

[bit_user]

4. MS is suid by many states and FED for being monopoly then MS makes backroom deal with government and charges dropped.
5 Revealed MS worked with NSA on Vista OS
6 MS has been a fascist FED lackey ever since.

I really doubt any backdoors that might exist in MS products had anything to do with the anti-trust settlement. Recently, they also sued the US government over data request gag orders.

Last time I checked, the definition of a "monopoly" is controlling a market and limiting competition. Microsoft has not done that against Apple or Linux. Apple is free to directly compete with Windows/PC if they wish. They are a different animal and a niche market. That's not MS's fault.

For one thing, it helps to know the laws around monopolies. In the US, as well as other countries and probably the EU, there are more legal restrictions placed on a company for simply having a dominant position (something like 80%, I think) in a market.

And MS has a long & storied history of anti-competitive practices that are, in my opinion, much worse than simply bundling IE or Windows Media Player with their OS. Things like strong-arming PC OEMs to ship their systems with Windows & other MS products. Under Bill Gates, MS was ruthless up to, and sometimes beyond what the law allows.

And before you simply shrug your shoulders, we can never know the impact it's had on innovation or quality, but we can safely assume that MS would've had to lower its prices (and they certainly could've - their margins in prior decades were truly massive), meaning us old-timers have probably all paid hundreds of $'s more than we might've. And even if you didn't run MS software or pirated whatever you did run, what it does is increase the cost of all the other products and services you buy, as a consequence of everyone in the supply chain having to pay inflated prices for their software. IMO, it's no wonder the cloud is like 99% Linux.

We can also talk about the SCO lawsuits, when they tried to sink Linux, but that was a different animal - it was shady, but not illegal. By the time Ballmer took over, MS was under much greater scrutiny (and had narrowly avoided being broken up), so I can't say whether any drop in borderline tactics would be attributable to a difference in personalities.

At this point, the market has successfully innovated around MS, for the most part. So, we can look back on all this and see it as fairly quaint. But MS' ruthless business practices were the demise of many in the industry, who might've otherwise succeeded.

* I think OS/2 was one of the more obvious casualties of MS' ruthless business practices. As it could run Windows programs, perhaps it might've been a viable alternative to those who where frustrated with instability of Windows products. Maybe MS would've had to respond by upping their game on quality & reliability. Who knows?

 

[bit_user]

Are we going to get a history of UNIX or LINUX?

I once saw a poster diagramming the lineages of all UNIX flavors, up through the late 90's. It's safe to say that wouldn't fit in a slideshow, but I guess a few highlights could be placed on a timeline. For instance, the System V / BSD schism whose echos can even be felt, today.

BTW, while Google gets most of the credit for bringing UNIX into the mainstream (via Android), I think Apple really led the way (OS X is BSD-based). Yeah, while you weren't looking Linux did an end-run around MS and became the dominant multi-tasking OS on the planet. Got an Android phone or Chromebook? You're running the Linux kernel. The web? Mostly Linux. Use cloud services? Probably Linux.

Here's a fun fact: while UNIX is perceived as big and complex (and it was, compared to CP/M and DOS), the name is actually a dig on MULTICS, which was even more complex than UNIX (at the time). It's also worth considering that many early UNIX machines had less than 640k and perhaps some had even less than 64k. And while it might be seen as an OS mainly for academics, some would say the Lisp machines of the 80's represented the zenith of OS's by and for that set.

 

[IInuyasha74]

I think IBM can share the blame for the death of OS/2. Microsoft had a hand in it for sure, but had IBM been more open about selling the OS at competitive prices and allowing other OEMs to sell it other than just IBM itself, I think OS/2 would still been around. Microsoft really sunk a lot of competitors though. Anyone remember BeOS? Or Towns OS, AmigaOS, NeXTSTEP, RISC OS?

As for the request to write a similar article for Unix/Linux, it could happen in the future. It's not a bad idea, and I appreciate the requests for more articles like this. I keep a list of potential new topics to cover, and if readers want to see something covered I make note of it. It would be best to PM me requests, however, as I don't always have time to read all of the comments. Unfortunately, I cannot say if we will cover a topic for certain, or if we do I can't say when we will. We don't like to announce publication dates for upcoming articles, because if for some reason we miss that date we don't want to disappoint readers. We do have more articles like this coming in the future, however, so stay tuned.

 

[bit_user]

I think IBM can share the blame for the death of OS/2. Microsoft had a hand in it for sure, but had IBM been more open about selling the OS at competitive prices and allowing other OEMs to sell it other than just IBM itself, I think OS/2 would still been around.

Fair point, though I think this avenue was partly foreclosed by MS' anti-competitive practices. By the time of OS/2's demise IBM had just a sliver of the desktop PC market. I really doubt they were trying to regain a foothold in this sector, using OS/2. Maybe for servers, though.

MS definitely sued IBM over OS/2. I think one point of contention was the Windows emulation layer, which was essential for it really to be a viable Windows alternative.

Anyone remember BeOS? Or Towns OS, AmigaOS, NeXTSTEP, RISC OS?

I don''t know to what extent MS ever viewed them as real threats.

AmigaOS only ran on Amiga computers (I had a friend with one), which were base on Motorola 68k CPUs. NeXT was also tied to its own hardware, and had to be saved by Apple (basically, after Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he brought NeXT with him). However, NeXT was basically trying to build workstations - not products for home users.

I actually ran BeOS, and it was truly impressive. Very snappy and responsive. It used my quad-CPU PC better than anything else. But I only installed & booted it as a novelty. Never really used it for anything. Their main aim was to be bought by Apple or maybe Sony.

I have no knowledge or experience with RISC OS. I don't even recall Town OS.

 

[IInuyasha74]

Yea Microsoft definitely had a hand in OS/2's downfall, I just feel that IBM really miss managed the OS and caused a lot of its own destruction. I suppose in a way most of those others did as well. Windows won mostly because it worked on more systems than anything else.

I also booted BeOS, but mostly as a curiosity. Probably about five years ago. I was rather impressed too. It reminded me of XP in many ways. It was one of the most effected by Microsoft. Be sued Microsoft for pushing OEMs to not sell products with BeOS. Microsoft ended up paying them a few million dollars to end the settlement, but didn't really help keep them afloat.

 

[bit_user]

I also booted BeOS, but mostly as a curiosity. Probably about five years ago. I was rather impressed too.

I actually bought probably their last retail release, in a store. It was sometime around 2000. I still have it, somewhere.

It was one of the most effected by Microsoft.

Well, did it ever run Windows software? If not, then I don't really see why they'd care. Maybe it was paranoia.

I liked that it supported Linux' ext2 filesystem and used the bash shell. I think porting things over from Linux was usually just a re-compile.

BeOS w/ a Windows compatibility layer would actually be pretty awesome. Maybe it could've filled the niche ReactOS is occupying.