Re: [PLUG] Fwd: CG: Windows XP warning

[Jon Galt <jongalt@pinn.net>]

I wrote:
> > Yes, that's true.  It's one of the reasons, if not *the* reason "IBM
> > compatibles" did so much better in the home computer market than
> > competitors.  IBM contracted with Microsoft to write the first OS for the

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> I don't think so.

I'm sure about it.  I used to teach a class in how to use MS Office (I
know it's a sacrilige, but they wanted it and they paid me for it).  As a
side note, the book I used explained the story of how IBM went to Bill 
Gates to write the operating system, but he originally sent IBM to 
somebody else, who refused to meet with them on their terms.  So IBM went
back to Bill Gates, and he agreed to do the software.  He then proceeded
to use somebody else's OS code, which as I understand it, he purchased
legitimately.  I'm less sure about this part, and the whole story could be
wrong I suppose.  But I know I'm remembering what the book said, although
unfortunately I can't find it right now.

> I know that there were better machines for the same
> price. Wasn't the amiga better (gui + sound), cheaper, and it had dos
> emulation? I thought that the reason that the other models failed was due
> to inept business decisions and standardization. That is MS benefited from
> the size of IBM which was trusted at the time, "nobody gets fired for
> buying IBM (now it's MS)". So people bought, at home, what they had at
> work.

Maybe so, I wasn't distinguishing between home computers vs work
computers.  I just meant the standard desktop PC as opposed to mainframes,
etc.

> MS didn't write the OS, they just resold other people's work.

Agreed.

> Not to mention that soon after that, there were other oses that ran on the
> same hardware: dr-dos, and os2,

I believe dr-dos and os2 came out *significantly* later than PC-DOS and
MS-DOS.  Does anybody know the dates?

> both of which ran dos apps. I have heard
> that the two listed were better than MS' product at the time, so in this
> case, the market was not efficient.

I'm not arguing efficiency of markets here (although I am always in favor
of free enterprise).  My original point was to agree with Mike Leone that
Microsoft was not the primary factor in making the standard PC hardware so
cheap - IBM's intentional openness with their specs is what did it.  In
fact, I would say that Microsoft was more of a beneficiary than a cause of
cheap hardware.

Wayne


______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug