Skip to main content

View Diary: Microsoft is Why You Are Free, Software (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Microsoft didn't care about hardware at all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, 207wickedgood, kevinpdx

    at the time. They had a partnership with IBM at the time, and the were given access to IBM's CP/M so they could make their own version to run on IBM manufactured computers. They didn't tell IBM they intended to anyone who was going to build IBM compatible machines, and eventually put IBM out of the personal computer market. It wasn't ethical, to be sure, but it is why PCs are so much cheaper than Macs, as you ably point out, angryea. Microsoft's goal was not to promote computing for the masses, but to burn IBM. But it turned out to be quite a great deal for the masses. Yes, it was very open source in spirit, long before the term existed, I believe.

    If  won a high end Mac in a contest, I'd probably dump OSX and run a dual boot of Linux and the Windows.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 06:33:06 PM PST

    •  Here's the sequence... (3+ / 0-)

      IBM wanted to use Digital Research's CP/M.  Digital Research was already successful, so they saw no incentive to sign a license agreement with IBM.  They wanted royalties.

      Then IBM turned to Bill Gates.  Bill had heard about an operating system called DOS, written by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products.  He bought DOS for $50,000.

      IBM did not force them into an exclusive licensing agreement, so when the clones came along, Microsoft gleefully sold to them as well.

      Microsoft wasn't in the hardware business at all for a long time.  Then they branched out into peripherals, mice, keyboards, etc., and finally jumped in with the xbox.  The xbox is a personal computer, just configured specifically for gaming.  That's true of all modern gaming consoles.

      This is from memory, so forgive me if I made any errors.

      Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

      by rbird on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 08:49:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  quite accurate. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        IBM was quite naive about what they were giving Microsoft access to, because they were a relative late comer into the PC world. Since every company had their own unique architecture and there in house operating system, and were quite happy with it that way, that there was any real reason not to give IBM full access to their info without restrictions. Microsoft knew better.

        Operating systems were called Disk Operating Systems, back then. DOS. Sound familiar? IBM called theirs CP/M, but other companies would use a variation of their name or trademark followed by DOS. So, you have MS-DOS, and Apple had Apple-DOS. We think of DOS as something that is Microsoft, but everyone has a DOS back then. Technically speaking, every OS is a DOS, but nobody uses the that term anymore. The term DOS is so tied in with Microsoft, that for a long time after the demise of MS-DOS, MS was still using the term for their command prompt within Windows, even though after Windows 98, there was no more MS-DOS.

        Oh, the history.

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:22:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not entirely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paxpi, rbird

        IBM expected that there would be an aftermarket of cheap hardware, but also expected that they would be on the upgrade path asthe high margin vendor.  (It was IBM that published the specs for an "IBM compatible" PC.)  The issue is that Microsoft somehow got the licensing deal they got.  Remember that IBM was just freed from worrying about the DOJ antitrust lawsuit and was very gun shy about playing hardball with a smaller (this is 1980) business partner.

        And one of the great mysteries is how the Intel 8086 got there.  (Intel had built a truly bizarre chip to compete with the Motorola 68000, which was used in Apple and in a lot of the emerging workstation market.  It didn't work.  So Intel's engineers basically pulled an all nighter and slapped the 8086 together in a few weeks.)  CP/M didn't run on Intel, and that's where MS-DOS came in.  I am truly damned if I can figure out how Intel sold this piece of crap to a company full of world class hardware designers.  Goes to show you that corporate bureaucracy crushes everything.

    •  If won a high end Mac in a contest, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duckmg, RhodeIslandAspie

      I'd keep OSX, thank you very much.  I might set up a Linux partition, but Windows?  No thank you!

      •  I would have a windows partition (0+ / 0-)

        simply for certain programs I might want to run.

        Linux still isn't quite there yet, and OSX keeps me too much in a jail for my liking.

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:24:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site