NODE ad1de59bRe: Microsoft Flame[tm] [NOISE]
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>Thu, 21 Dec 95 10:52:58 PST
Forget about the monopoly aspects for a second and look
>at MS as an American success story. It has all the classic elements: started
>small, with a crew of social misfits and eventually grew up.
>RobL
>------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Lowry |
>PO Box 288 |
>Rockford Wa 99030 | ral@otc.mhs.compuserve.com robl@on-ramp.ior.com
Well, I disagree. Microsoft succeeded primarily because it was "chosen" by
IBM in about 1981 or so, needing an OS for their PC. MS didn't even write
it; Seattle Computer did, and that was a port of CP/M. Not much creativity.
MSDOS revisions 1.0 and 1.1 were pure crap.
NODE 0d65e049Re: Microsoft Flame[tm] [NOISE]
Light Ray <fricke@mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>Thu, 21 Dec 95 17:50:02 PST
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, jim bell wrote:
> Well, I disagree. Microsoft succeeded primarily because it was "chosen" by
> IBM in about 1981 or so, needing an OS for their PC. MS didn't even write
> it; Seattle Computer did, and that was a port of CP/M. Not much creativity.
> MSDOS revisions 1.0 and 1.1 were pure crap.
I'm sure that's true to a large extent. However, although I may be
wrong, I beleive that MS's primary reason for initial success was in MS
BASIC. They needed a new OS to go with BASIC, so they used DOS. They
needed a new filesystem to store BASIC files, and thus FAT was born.
Tobin Fricke