[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: In the Briefcases of Gates' Lawyers

  I don't know who DL-J is, but he's wonderfully uninformed...
  Microcomputer Basic wasn't "invented" by Microsoft.  Charitably, one can say
  they "ported" Basic to the Microcomputer.
  "Intel based Operating Systems" weren't invented by Microsoft either... DOS was
  -purchased- by Gates, Paul Allen and some other guy they forced out of the deal
  after IBM asked Gates to provide an OS for their new PC.  I seem to recall the
  story being that Bill's Mother was on the United Way board with the head of IBM
  at the time (Opal?, Akers?).  He mentioned it to her and she mentioned Bill's
  company could do it.  No idea if the story is true or not...
  Anyway, Bill's company, Microsoft, tweaked it a little and licensed it to IBM.
  Despite what magazines say, Windows 1.x through 3.x is -not- an Operating
  System.  Try to start it without DOS on the computer.  Heck, you can't even
  -install- it on the PC without a pre-existing OS.  I haven't figured out whether
  Windows 95 is an OS or not.  Is it a new GUI on top of DOS as many allege?  Or
  is it an OS which can "Dual Boot" over to MS-DOS 7?  I -do- know that if one
  particular parm is changed, you don't get the GUI when you boot so I'm leaning
  towards the former.
  So you've got UNIX, (untouched by Microsoft) DOS, (created by someone else)
  OS/2, initially a joint development by IBM and Microsoft and Windows NT, a
  branch off of OS/2 v1.3(?).  NeXT?  Steve Jobs' company and I'm not sure if it
  runs on Intel based processors.
  Scott K. McGrath
  charles mueller wrote:
  >         The following is from another list:
  >         Charles Mueller, Editor
  >         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
  >                                                 ***************
  > From: "David Lloyd-Jones" <dlj@pobox.com>
  > charles mueller's latest contribution to the fantasy world of Bill Gates
  > haters:
  > >They're the ones Bill Gates' lawyers have committed to memory--and briefed
  > >him on, and carefully explained to him, as they assured him over the years
  > >that he has every "right" under the antitrust laws to monopolize "his"
  > >industry.
  > Since Microsoft sells roughly a third as much software as IBM -- the score
  > being roughly $11 billion to $30 billion in 1996, I believe --
  > and since IBM and Microsoft are merely two of the thousands of companies
  > making and selling software, this "monopoly" stuff looks like a load of
  > bollocks to me.
  > Even in industries which Microsoft created from nothing, microcomputer BASIC
  > and Intel-based operating systems being two good examples, Gates's company
  > is today a niche player.  A large niche player, it may be said, but in both
  > of those two its competitors include IBM, recently returned to competence.
  > Other very competent companies, including Symantec, Borland, and Novell
  > compete in one or the other of these.
  > There is a pattern for successes in the computer industry: companies that
  > make good products and sell them cheap have a tendency to wipe out companies
  > selling less good products at high prices.  This Gates sold DOS for $65 in
  > the teeth of the inferior CP/M being retailed for $245.  Phillipe Kahn made
  > a business out of Borland's garage invention of the IDE (Integrated
  > Development Environment) selling first an IDE for the C language, and then
  > others later, for a few hundred dollars -- a cheap price for the vast
  > productivity increases they brought about.  Later Kahn/Borland became
  > dominant in Pascal through the mysterious trick of putting out a fast, easy
  > to use, and well documented version for $99 against competitors with
  > inferior product at three or more times the price.  Scandalous behaviour,
  > I'm sure.
  > -dlj.