Slashdot Mirror


Return of the '70s Microsoft Weirdos

theodp writes "On the eve of the company's move from Albuquerque to Seattle in 1978, a famous photo was taken (in a shopping mall no less) of the original Microsoft team, looking mighty sharp in their '70s outfits. Almost 30 years later, as Bill Gates prepares to depart from Microsoft, the group (looking older, but better) reconvened for a retake."

338 comments

  1. Epitome by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "Bob Greenberg (center of old photo, in red sweater), then a programmer and now a tech and financial consultant ... "

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Epitome by v1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Comparing the old photo and the new photo I can't help but notice there are three women in center on the left, and two on the right. Other than that they seem to match up, though the distance in years does make it a little muddy.

      Does anyone have the list of names to go with the faces, for both?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Epitome by Ucklak · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTA:

      Present for the reunion was office manager Miriam Lubow (center of new picture), who missed the original sitting due to a snowstorm. (When Lubow, now retired, first met Gates, she couldn't believe that disheveled kid was the president.) Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace (top center), who died in 2002; after leaving Microsoft in 1983, he pioneered the idea of shareware.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    3. Re:Epitome by yuriyg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for pointing this out, I noticed that as well and started to suspect there was a Wachowski brothers thing going on.

    4. Re:Epitome by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought that blonde lady looked alot different without her beard too.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:Epitome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Present for the reunion was office manager Miriam Lubow (center of new picture), who missed the original sitting due to a snowstorm. (When Lubow, now retired, first met Gates, she couldn't believe that disheveled kid was the president.) Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace (top center), who died in 2002; after leaving Microsoft in 1983, he pioneered the idea of shareware. That explains it then .... for a while there I thought the guy in the center of the 70s picture had undergone a sex change operation in the interim.
    6. Re:Epitome by Aussie · · Score: 1

      he pioneered the idea of shareware. Never heard of Buttonware ?

      This guy pioneered the idea of shareware. Microsoft busy trying to rewrite history again ?

    7. Re:Epitome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "after leaving Microsoft in 1983, he pioneered the idea of shareware."

      I know it's a nice sentiment and all, but isn't that like saying "he pioneered the idea of not getting paid for software you write and, indeed, was instrumental in giving the whole craker-password community to exist."

    8. Re:Epitome by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      yeah it's impossible to have more than one person pioneering!

    9. Re:Epitome by Aussie · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's possible to re-pioneer something that already existed before he left MS.
      Typical MS thinking, just because you noticed something doesn't mean you pioneered it.

  2. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have dressed for the part.

  3. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the photo that I need for when time travel is invented, so windows can be prevented from happening.

    1. Re:Thank you by Mauzl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although your post is obviously a joke, Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people. This is something that Linux is only beginning to do, IMO.

    2. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Linux is only beginning to get the PC into the lives of average people? Well, yeah, considering that plenty of them already have it in their lives...

    3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who will start fading away when you do your mother?

    4. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people.

      Well, they did the job (I hesitate to use the word fantastic) by making sure that no one else had a chance. You have read some of the documents that came out during the government's litigation against their business practices, right?

    5. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternatives would have filled the void. I can only dream what that timeline would have been like.

    6. Re:Thank you by The+Dobber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I'd grant you the fact that Linux is indeed powering many of the systems people interact with, it remains that Linux has failed time and again to fulfill it's Year Of Desktop boasts.

      Windows, for all it's warts, allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers.

    7. Re:Thank you by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we get rid of that horrific myth once and for all? If there had been no Windows, we would have had something else, and chances are it would have been much better.

    8. Re:Thank you by Evil_Ether · · Score: 1

      Did Red Alert teach you nothing? Kill one evil and another will rise to take its place.

      --
      If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    9. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows, for all it's warts, allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers. Well, except those who cannot afford a license.
    10. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like AmigaOS, for instance.

    11. Re:Thank you by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Between 1980 and ~2000, the cost of a license was small compared to the cost of a computer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Thank you by Bashae · · Score: 1

      Hm? I thought those who couldn't afford a license used pira*cough*cough*

      Sorry, of course you're right ;)

    13. Re:Thank you by Bashae · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, woe is me. I clicked the wrong reply button. I'm sorry. I'm extremely sick and drowsy from fever right now.

    14. Re:Thank you by houghi · · Score: 1

      It is not so much Windows that should be stopped as Microsoft that should be stopped. So when you are there, take a copy of the GPL with you and convince the players to GPL the code that MS will steal and work on (Altair Basic)

      The date should be before February 3, 1976 and the company is the called Micro-Soft

      The reason: http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html

      That way we can sue them to hell and back when they come out with Win98 and put all that money to good use for OSS.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re:Thank you by Bertie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say it held it back if anything.

      I personally got into 16-bit, GUI computing in 1987 when my parents gave in to ten-year-old me and spent what for them was a load of money on an Atari ST. Over the next couple of years a lot of other kids my age followed suit and bought STs or Amigas. We were introduced to Windows (Version 2, y'know) at school and it just seemed hopelessly antiquated. We couldn't get our heads round why anybody would buy a system running this crap when they could get about five STs for the same price, all of which would run rings round the PC clone.

      Of course, time passed and Atari, Commodore et al proved themselves much less proficient at running businesses than they were at designing computers, support waned and we found ourselves with no realistic option other than Windows (95 by this point). It still felt like a backward step and they'd had years to catch up.

      So I reckon that if things had worked out a bit differently and, say, Commodore had been as ruthless in business as Microsoft, we'd be far ahead of where we are now. Or at least we'd have got to where we are now years ago. Windows never put a computer into my house, and it did a good job of killing off the better, cheaper alternatives that myself and millions liked me had plumped for.

    16. Re:Thank you by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Or DavrOS. Obey! Obey!
      hmmmm... maybe that's too reminiscent of Vista.

    17. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates, et al may have used some shady business practices to get the original DOS (though they legitimately bought it, before signing a contract, get a lawyer to read it), but BASIC for the Altair was their work (mostly GATES if not msitaken)

    18. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Are you serious? Have you seen any recent version of Ubuntu? How can anyone say it's less user-friendly than Windows with a straight face?

    19. Re:Thank you by Anders · · Score: 1

      [...] Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people.

      That is not because of Windows. People do not get a computer to use Windows. Windows was just there when the hardware evolution made computers useful to average people (i.e. the Internet, digital music, digital photos).

    20. Re:Thank you by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Probably... but maybe we'd be 5 years behind where we are now.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    21. Re:Thank you by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was when marketing started to destroy the world. I know it's an exaggeration but not by far.

      --
      ics
    22. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True that, except in those years, DOS/Windows licenses could be moved between machines. Not so anymore, starting with XP activation and WGA later on. No more "one Windows license per company". This might hurt Windows sales in the long run. And besides, nothing can beat the $0 license tag of a Linux or BSD (plus optional donation). We all need money, but the exaggerated license fees for XP and Vista won't do anything good for their spreading. With WGA, pirating Windows is not really feasible anymore for those who would do that, but pirating played a major part in spreading Windows. Microsoft could have easily used dongles (or ISA/PCI cards with ROMs), for instance, but instead they put lame copy protection schemes (or none at all) in their older DOS/Windows variants.

    23. Re:Thank you by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      A few days ago when I replied to a post it would show my post in the right place. Now it shows it as its parent's reply. Does anyone else has that problem?

      --
      ics
    24. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 1

      With WGA in place, I guess pirating is not as easy any more as it used to be. It might hurt Windows sales and spread in the long run. Of course, OEM dealers still can get a Windows license for an apple and an egg, but those who build their own machines do already hesitate whether to shell out an additional couple hundred bucks for a license.

    25. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had 32bit Amiga 1200 back in 1992 or something. I turned it on, said "Wow it is fast", liked new workbench and there is that "32 bit" thing. Basically every program was already in 32bit.

      Amiga crashed very bad financially so I moved to x86/PC in Win 3.1/95 Schizophrenia age (my worst mistake, should be Apple).

      It was like surreal people were still in 16/32 bit age, being amazed to Windows 95. It is still same way to me, even running OS X Leopard. E.g. I had 64bit command line/linux back in 2003 with my first G5 1600 switched from PC at last, so it was 64bit processor, I could install 8 gig of RAM. Now imagine I switch back to Vista 64 bit and watch people saying how cool 64bit is after 5 years.

      We shouldn't have Atari ST or Amiga so we could really get impressed by these things :) It is still effecting, e.g. after the magnificent Word Processing tools in Amiga, I can't get so much excited about the Apple Pages 08. I had much of the functionality back in Amiga 1200.

    26. Re:Thank you by DustCollector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unix, born in the 1960s, had a 20 year head start over Microsoft, but Unix geeks just weren't interested in bringing a desktop to the masses in the same way Microsoft was.

      It's certainly true we could have had something better -- Amiga, Commodore, Apple, etc. -- but if any one of those alternatives succeeded like Microsoft, it would have most likely adopted the same evil practices Microsoft used, and we'd probably end up with a similarly crappy system. In the alternate universe, it could very well have been Commodore Doors.

      Fortunately, Linux and Mac are both making headway in the current time line.

    27. Re:Thank you by SMOKEING · · Score: 1

      Linux had been ready for the desktop since about Freetype got to display TTFs antialiased.

      For all Ubuntu & friends' zeal, I would feel something has gone subtly wrong with the world if I find Linux--not some Win2K--on a counter in a supermarket, with a dolt whacking at the keypad.

      Linux is NOT for everyone, not for your grandma or mine. Nightmares come, if it is forced to.

    28. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was something else already, Windows and PC was the clone of it and it wasn't cheaper at all. Compare the original IBM to Apple prices. I think people can't think that the community chose that Text based horrible junk over Apple GUI and they think Apple came later to scene. It is the IBM who missed the personal computing revolution and dealt with MS in panic while MS didn't even have a single line of code in their hands.

      IBM didn't heroically open their platform, they were forced to it. There are still some old school small computer shops advertising or requiring 100% IBM compatible. People should look at the reasoning of that percentage number.

      Perhaps people shouldn't ignore the "Pirates of Silicon Valley" and watch/read it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_silicon_valley

    29. Re:Thank you by maxume · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not really sure the license fees are exaggerated (XP or Vista ships with the vast majority of PCs sold, the market doesn't seem to mind the price). Microsoft could charge less, but that doesn't mean that they would be better off doing so.

      For businesses that are paying people $30,000 a year to work (this is an absurd low ball), $300 every 3 years (this is probably somewhat high) is not particularly onerous of a license fee (any business will still prefer $299 to $300, and so on). As long as Microsoft can maintain the perceived value of Windows, they will do fine (and the 'mainstream' take on Vista is that it could have been better and more exciting, not that it flopped).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    30. Re:Thank you by DMalic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never met someone who originally owned an Amiga who still believes Microsoft advanced computing more then they hurt it.

    31. Re:Thank you by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      For the photo that I need for when time travel is invented, so windows can be prevented from happening.
      All we really have to do is send an Richard Stallman-shaped terminator back through time to 1978 to deal with the Microsoft people.
      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    32. Re:Thank you by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people.

      Windows did a fantastic job of stifling innovation in the PC industry. Imagine how much more reliable and diverse computers would have been if Microsoft had not prevented innovation from occuring? Microsoft was more concerned about monopoly maintenance than innovation.

    33. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are 5 or even 10 years behind in computing thanks to MS. Think about it. Who wasn't in 32bit computing except MS customers back in 1995? Did you see the Netscape 4 demos which seriously drove them into panic that time? Now we are beginning to talk about Web services in freaking 2008 and people still suffer when they try it with IE.
      You better watch Archive.org "computer chronicles" videos and think what would happen if MS wasn't in scene with their business tactics and backwards products.
      http://www.archive.org/details/computerchronicles
      People were video editing on their Amigas back in 1991 for instance.

    34. Re:Thank you by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      or 5 years ahead.

    35. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Now the Java platform is something you can really produce even great desktop software (even with Sun!), they are with .NET in scene playing games.

      Hitting it back in 2000s wasn't enough, now it needs another hit. They can't handle competition at all.

    36. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gimme a break. Microsoft Windows is not responsible for getting computers into average peoples lives. They won a competition for corporate interest - and this preceded windows - remember MS DOS!

      When I think of computers that got computers into peoples' lives, I think of the Apple II/II+.

      Lets not forget that the original Mac (and X Windows/Unix) had windowing systems before Microsoft and that the original Windows was a late and clumsy graphical interface bloomer that was patched on top of MS DOS. The only thing that kept Microsoft dominant with the original windows was the entrenchment of MS DOS, perhaps some questionable business practices and Apple not being able to capture market with their proprietary software/hardware packaging.

      One thing Microsoft is possibly responsible for is unlinking operating system from hardware manufacturer and making it work. This is a really great thing... as much as I hate to admit it.

    37. Re:Thank you by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Windows, for all it's warts, allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers.

      What you fail to understand is that, without Windows, something else would have filled the void. Progress in personal computers would not have stopped if Windows weren't around. Indeed, Microsoft was so concerned about monopoly maintenance, that innovation in the PC industry suffered. Progress might have been faster without Bill Gates' presence.

    38. Re:Thank you by billcopc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft does charge less, to OEMs that is.

      The license that is sold for $250 in-store, costs $80 (or less) to the OEM - even mom & pop shops. That's one hell of an insult to the loyal customers who actually buy the new OS to update their existing PCs, and to the businesses that buy hundreds or thousands of licenses. They can negotiate a "preferred partner" deal, but it's still nowhere near the OEM pricing.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    39. Re:Thank you by jaxtherat · · Score: 1

      I (grudgingy to some extent) have to agree. If it wasn't for Microsoft we wouldn't have the PC as such a ubiquitous part of the modern western home. As much as Apple is now billed to be as the computer for the average, non computer literate person, back in the day Macs were unaffordable compared to say a Gateway or an Osborne running Win 95.

      Thanks to Microsoft we now have your grandma planning her round the world trip on Google Earth and poking you on Facebook, for better or for worse.

      Having said all that, I'm dying to see what will happen in the next couple of years with the advent with AUS$ 1600 iMacs and Dell selling cheap as chips Ubuntu comps (both easier to run, and don't require a pound of flesh to Symantec or McAffee).

      Exciting times ahead!

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    40. Re:Thank you by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do people assume WGA is the end of piracy ?

      WGA, like any other protection scheme, is defeated with a small patch. I've seen one that loads some resident code at boot time, before handing control over to the Vista loader, and somehow convinces the activation check to always pass. Game over!

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    41. Re:Thank you by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Windows, for all it's warts, allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers.

      You say that like it is a good thing...
      there is a possibility that without windows we might be free of lolcats and myspace..
    42. Re:Thank you by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it held anything back because those OSes you mentioned all had the same problem: they were built to sell hardware. There's no way you'd ever see an Amiga or Atari OS running on IBM (or compatible) hardware. IBM PC hardware wasn't that great but it was seen as "professional" hardware. If you'll remember correctly, there was already an IBM PC sales boom starting before Windows was really popular. DOS of all things was the OS installed on most of those PCs. The first reasonable GUI-heavy OS on the IBM PC platform was poised to be king. If Windows didn't do it, OS/2 would have. I refuse to see how that would've been any better. The brilliant OSes that Atari and Amiga designed would be forever attached to what was considered "toy" hardware by most.

    43. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhhh, mac os anyone? Weren't they the first with a gui?

    44. Re:Thank you by Mauzl · · Score: 1

      So, by the same logic Martin Luther King wasn't a hero. Surely someone else would have done his great work eventually! I think I just hit level 5 in the 'Strawman' skill. Sweet!

    45. Re:Thank you by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      No doubt. I laughed long and hard the first time I installed Windows 95 using this key: 111-1111111

      Obvious now what their intent was.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    46. Re:Thank you by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Valid speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It may well be the case that someone would have filled the void, but I don't think you can consider it a certainty. Consider what else was out there about the time that, say, Windows 3.0 was really taking root as the OS of choice for the masses:

      - Apple's MacOS was good, but tied to a hardware platform that was horribly overpriced, which would have been a barrier for a lot of computer purchases by families/individuals
      - Unix/Linux flavors. Linux was just starting out and certainly wouldn't have been ready as an OS for a personal computer for most. Unix would have been overkill/pointless in the same role.
      - OS/2 would probably have been the defacto choice for most PC's, but would IBM have filled the role of Microsoft to the same level? Remember that in the early 90's IBM was still arguably in their "Computers are for businesses" mode, and like Apple saw the OS as tool for selling hardware; without Microsoft to drag them into/compete with them in the home computer arena, would they have dedicated the kind of resources necessary to improving OS/2 at the same rate that Windows improved?

      Microsoft really was in a somewhat unique place to do what they did; they had ties to IBM (and others) that allowed them to get their OS's on a lot of computers, but they were still independent enough to take advantage of the then bold idea that "It's all about the software". I don't think you can say for certain that another company would have just stepped in and filled their shoes, and succeeded in bring computers to the masses as well as they did.

    47. Re:Thank you by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 8088 processor was chosen by IBM for the IBM PC specifically to hold personal computing back. The processor series was a very poor choice for a desktop machine.

      The 6809 was a far superior chip, good enough that a reasonably convincing Unix clone was available in 1980, the year IBM decided to create the "IBM PC". That was bad from their perspectives, because it would strengthen Unix as a competitor in the midrange business. You can still get OS-9 for embedded use or set-top box use. The 6809 shared many architectural features and philosophy with the much more powerful 68000 (which also appeared in an eight bit external bus form in 1982). This would have eased the transition to 32 bit computing, which also would have been a bad thing.

      This, of course, is not Microsoft's fault. IBM didn't give a damn that the processor wasn't the best choice of a desktop OS, nor did they very much care about the fact that the "OS" they chose wasn't much more than a set of primitive libraries and provided no real hardware management at all. These were, in fact, desirable from their point of view. They wanted something quick, on which they could slap the IBM nameplate and make a lot of short term bucks selling expensive doorstops, along the way keeping Apple IIs out of businesses. They succeeded on all counts in the short term, which was all the term there was meant to be. The "IBM PC" would have been a technological dead end, it was in fact intended to be so, if it wasn't for the fact somebody ended up creating a killer app for all those doorstops: Lotus 1-2-3.

      Windows 3 (ca. 1990) was a tremendous achievement, given what they had to work with. But it was technically far behind what was available at the time. MacOS 6 had been available for a couple of years, and it not only had a superior GUI, it had built in support for sound and networking (which didn't come on most PCs). There was, of course, OS-9. Even Microsoft had a better OS than Windows 3 on top of DOS, namely XENIX.

      So it is true that Windows accelerated the usage of MS-DOS by the average user. But DOS itself, which was the underpinnings of Windows, held the user back. How many users had to learn the nuances of TSRs, extended memory vs. expanded memory etc? How many programers had to deal with non-productive technical details like thunks as they struggled to take advantage of 32 bit hardware with a sixteen bit operating system? How long was networking delayed by proprietary protocols shoehorned onto an operating system with no fundamental support for networking, when TCP/IP had already been existence for years?

      All in all, its a mixed bag. Windows made a really bad computer with really bad system software a lot more tolerable for users, and Microsoft deserves credit for this. But they don't deserve credit for personal computing. The whole "IBM PC" and "DOS" enterprise set computing back almost a decade.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    48. Re:Thank you by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be fascinating if the actual intent of having the key input was to make it seem more valuable.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    49. Re:Thank you by ATMD · · Score: 1

      *cough*Mac*cough*OS/2*cough*

      And Linux is irrelevant in this argument. It wasn't even invented at the time.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    50. Re:Thank you by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can.

      Ubuntu is nice, in a entry level geeky kind of way. But it doesn't come close to fulfilling the Desktop boast of Linux.

    51. Re:Thank you by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I had 64bit command line/linux back in 2003 with my first G5 1600 switched from PC at last, so it was 64bit processor, I could install 8 gig of RAM. Now imagine I switch back to Vista 64 bit and watch people saying how cool 64bit is after 5 years.

      That's not a technology problem, that's an adoption rate problem... Windows has supported 64-bit operation since 2002 (for Itanium.)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    52. Re:Thank you by furlongxweek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm glad to hear your grandma can successfully set up and administer a Windows installation. My grandma isn't so much skilled. She just uses a few apps, and calls me to install programs and do troubleshooting, like 90% of windows users do.

    53. Re:Thank you by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

      What?

      And where is this mythical fantastic bit of kit now?

      The playing field was wide open in the 80's. Everybody could have innovated, but only one or two companies took the opportunity to do just that.

    54. Re:Thank you by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      Or Nifty Doors from Ubersoft.

      You never know...

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    55. Re:Thank you by The+Dobber · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thats what, 3 or 4 people?

      Hardly a statistically significant opinion.

    56. Re:Thank you by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      I think Christopher Columbus would be a more apt comparison.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    57. Re:Thank you by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone, easily. Before you mod me troll, it's nothing to do with the OS, it's to do with what people know. People know to click the blue 'e' for the internet, the blue 'W' to type a letter and so on. A whole generation of people have grown up using nothing but Windows, and so when you put them in front of something that doesn't work like Windows, they freak out and don't like it. The first steps towards breaking this are the sales of PC's with Linux on them, with which children will learn to use Linux, and thus will perceive that as 'the right way'. That is the way forward because, sadly, no matter how good Ubuntu gets, there are a lot of people out there that won't like it because they're too used to Windows.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    58. Re:Thank you by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      People were video editing on their Amigas back in 1991 for instance.

      I used an old amiga video toaster back in 1994-5 as part of my highschool curriculum. We also had a non-linear editing suite running on a PC with windows 95 and Adobe Premiere. The difference between the two? I could take one of the dumber kids in the class and in half an hour teach them the basics of editing on the windows machine. Whereas on the Amiga machine .... good luck! Most of the people in the class never learned how to do anything on it except generate end credits.

    59. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the XEROX Parc was the first with a GUI. Then came Apple with the Lisa, and finally the first Mac. And after that, the Atari ST and the Amiga. AFAIK, AmigaOS was the first OS like we know it today, with 32-bit, pre-emptive multitasking and GUI. A Mac was much too expensive for the general public. Until Mac OS X and the advent of cheap Macs, Macs were not for the general public.

    60. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      First of all, in 1994-1995 Toaster on Amiga really started to show its age. Secondly, Toaster is a professional workstation type system while Adobe Premiere is end user friendly just like todays AVID vs Adobe Premiere.
      The most important of all, I am trying to show the Microsoft and how it basically stopped time by being the only player in market. In 1991, people on PC had DOS, DOS 5 (not sure about version), it showed characters on its black screen and it needed massive hacks running to fake multitasking.
      On ease of usability, I would look at Apple Macintosh tools of 1990s.
      BTW Toaster is still being used especially at TV news desks which it is selected over others for getting things done fast and on relatively cheap PCs in satellite/uplink/news type work. It is a really fast tool to get things done if you get used to it.

    61. Re:Thank you by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      It is also part of technology problem. The "In" part of Wintel gang wasn't caring about 64bit (Until AMD Opteron) and things were not like PowerPC which is designed with 64bit in mind from the ground. See, Windows 32bit people still see 3.2 GB free or something and there is no Apple to say "We are going 64bit, adopt or die", they still struggle to support 16bit junk programs.

    62. Re:Thank you by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks to Microsoft we now have your grandma planning her round the world trip on Google Earth and poking you on Facebook, for better or for worse. Microsoft did bugger all with online services until the Internet started becoming popular with the general public. Even then their first response wasn't to embrace it wholeheartedly, but to launch MSN (in its original incarnation as a closed, proprietary network) instead.

      Only when it was clear that the Internet was here to stay and that walled-garden rivals like MSN couldn't compete did MS go for it wholeheartedly. Thanking MS for the likes of Google Earth is giving them credit they don't deserve, in that area at any rate.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    63. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get rid of that horrific myth once and for all? If there had been no Windows, we would have had something else, and chances are it would have been much better.

      Way to be over dramatic...I'm not sure this qualifies as "horrific". Genocide sure, slavery sure, giving Microsoft some credit for something they did....probably not, even by Slashdot standards.

      Yes something else would have come along. Maybe faster, maybe slower, but Windows was what did come along, hence they deserve the credit for what actually happened not what might have. Try not to hate them blindly, they did do good things for the industry along with their ridiculous business practices later.

    64. Re:Thank you by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The most important of all, I am trying to show the Microsoft and how it basically stopped time by being the only player in market. In 1991, people on PC had DOS, DOS 5 (not sure about version), it showed characters on its black screen and it needed massive hacks running to fake multitasking.
      On ease of usability, I would look at Apple Macintosh tools of 1990s.

      I don't know, man. In 1991 I was a pre-teen with an IBM XT, and I liked it just fine. Once I figured out how to access BBS's, the world was my oyster. My school at the time had only Macintosh computers, and while they looked all pretty and shiny and were fairly enjoyable to use, I still preferred my 286 processor with DOS 3.5 and XTree Gold :)

      I guess you're right - at the time the macs certainly WERE easier to use, which is why we were using them in my middle-school. But a few years later in highschool we transitioned from macs to PC's with windows 95, and I don't remember there being a big problem with it. Everyone seemed to agree that windows was much better - with the exception of a few mac snobs who happened to have rich parents and $20,000 worth of Apple branded equipment sitting at home. The rest of us were quite happy to switch over.

    65. Re:Thank you by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      In 92 I was a was a preteen with a 486, DOS 5, and windows 3.1. I used netscape and the world wide web.

    66. Re:Thank you by binner1 · · Score: 1

      preferred my 286 processor with DOS 3.5 and XTree Gold :)

      I still remember XTree Gold fondly...that was one hell of a file manager with some extra goodies tacked in (hex + text editting, etc). People always raved about Norton Commander, but I'd take XTree any day. I think it would still hold up well today...When it came to working with multiple files at the same time it was great. It's use of Ctrl or Alt to work with the current file or the currently selected files (I don't remember the specifics), etc was a very intuitive way to organize the keyboard shortcuts.

      Thanks for the good memories!

      -Ben

    67. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily we were not relying on Apple. 7 and 8 were really bad and they only introduced pre-emptive multitasking with X thereby joining the twentieth century in the twenty first.

    68. Re:Thank you by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Microsoft we now have your grandma planning her round the world trip on Google Earth and poking you on Facebook, for better or for worse.

      Without BSD, there would not have been a modern internet over which she could have done such things.

    69. Re:Thank you by multisync · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although your post is obviously a joke, Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people.

      No, that was the Internet.

      The spreadsheet was the "killer ap" that got PCs on to the desktops of accountants and managers. The Internet was the "killer ap" that finally got the PC in to the homes of people like our parents. Email, the web and now digital photos of grandchildren on Facebook and Flickr have pretty much made even a dial-up account a necessity for pretty much everyone. Homeless people use the Internet.

      And Bill Gates famously missed the potential of a free & open Internet until quite late in the game (I don't think Windows shipped with built-in support for TCP/IP until Windows 98, but correct me if I'm wrong).

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    70. Re:Thank you by Davoid · · Score: 1

      I often hear about the "failure" of 'Year-of-Linux-on-the-Desktop'... But I never hear the question asked: 'What was the year of Windows on the desktop?' and 'Why was Windows on the desktop successful?' and 'How did this happen?'. This leads to how does one define success or failure of an OS 'on the Desktop?'.

      -DU-

      --
      "Don't sweat the technique."
    71. Re:Thank you by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The 8088 processor was chosen by IBM for the IBM PC specifically to hold personal computing back. The processor series was a very poor choice for a desktop machine.
       
      The 6809 was a far superior chip, good enough that a reasonably convincing Unix clone was available in 1980, the year IBM decided to create the "IBM PC". That was bad from their perspectives, because it would strengthen Unix as a competitor in the midrange business.

      Ah yes, the evil conspiracy theory of history.
       
      It's amazing how they continue to flourish even when contrary to the facts... First, an 8088 based machine was far cheaper than 6800 series based machine (a Very Good Thing when designing a low end machine). And second 'IBM' didn't pick anything because the PC group was a little wildcat project upper management all but ignored. It wasn't part of a strategy, it wasn't part of a marketing, etc... etc...
    72. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we would have *eventually* had something else. Mac and Amiga would have easily taken much longer. It's not an opinion, it's a fact that the closed hardware platform and niche focus of Microsoft's competitors would not allow them to realize critical market penetration. Sure, eventually IBM or some other company would have figured this out. However, it's no myth that we wouldn't be here today w/o Windows. we'd be a good 3-5 years behind by the time someone figured this out and got a product to market.

    73. Re:Thank you by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I think you're seeing things through a tinted lens... Intel DID care about 64-bit, provably so as they wasted billions on Itanium--a ground up redesign, like what you wanted, unlike AMD64 which was just a bolt on. Seeing all the negative comments in the "x86 hits 30 years of age" thread a week or so ago, I can't help but wonder if AMD's move will turn out, in hindsight, to have been something that held back computing by further extending the lifespan of the x86 architecture--something you would otherwise seem to be against, given your reference to PowerPC.

      Lastly, MS spends huge amounts of effort on backward compatibility because their customer base demands it. Even so, x64 builds of Windows do not support 16bit applications at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    74. Re:Thank you by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. It was the internet that really put a computer in ever home. Before interest in the Internet took of, few people actually had PCs.

    75. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also make sure to prevent Bill Gates from penning his disgusting 'Open Letter to Hobbyists'. That letter alone set back Free Software (and Free Unix) 20 years.

    76. Re:Thank you by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      The 6809 was a far superior chip,

      I go my start programming on a 6809 in assembler. I remember being pretty happy when I would compare notes with friends using other CPU's (6502, etc.)

      I also used OS-9 on the trs-80 color when developing games back around 1982. Although, I remember it more as a bunch of routines I called to do disk IO instead of having to rely on my own routines.
    77. Re:Thank you by armanox · · Score: 1

      My grandmother uses Linux you know.....and couldn't figure out windows.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    78. Re:Thank you by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      I'd say it held it back if anything.

      <snip interesting timeline>

      Wow, thanks for the perspective; I never had, or knew anybody that had, the resources to own an Amiga (although we did get a Commodore 64), and didn't end up using a machine running Windows until the mid 90's because of my job, so I never got to personally make that comparison.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    79. Re:Thank you by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The 8088 processor was chosen by IBM for the IBM PC specifically to hold personal computing back. The processor series was a very poor choice for a desktop machine.

      IBM required that there be a multiple sources for the CPU to which Intel agreed leading to AMD among others producing them.

      I am not sure about the second sourcing for the 68000 however Motorola at the time was unwilling to produce an 8 bit external bus version which later became the 68008. Intel's 8088 was a less expensive 8 bit external bus version of the 16 bit 8086 and was supported by the existing peripheral chips (also multiple sourced) made for the earlier 8080 and 8085.

      Being able to work from the CP/M code base was a consideration as well. Early on both CP/M-86 and MS-DOS were available.

    80. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding, people have such selective memories.

      The Unix people thought the PC was a joke until the mid 90's or so. It was a $50,000+ RISC workstation or you were some sort of joke. There certainly was a disdain for the PC platform in general from these people.

      Unfortunately for them, the 8086 architecture kept getting faster and cheaper and by the time these people saw where things were going, from a marketing perspective Unix was 10 years too late to do anything about it.

      Believe it or not, their lack of insight isn't Gate's fault.

    81. Re:Thank you by SMOKEING · · Score: 1

      No more real grandparents, please.

      If I had mine alive, she would certainly not be another bot, either.

      What's important, Linux takes a caring individual (a grandchild, to take things literally, for that matter) to work, and then it works good and pleases the master. Whilst windows is for the indifferent and dull: those who care and know good from bad, won't want it because it's bad and can't be mended.

      Linux won't `just work'

    82. Re:Thank you by multisync · · Score: 1

      BASIC for the Altair was their work (mostly GATES if not msitaken)

      Don't leave out Paul Allen.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    83. Re:Thank you by vidarh · · Score: 1

      No you didn't. Netscape wasn't released (beta of 1.0) until November '94.

    84. Re:Thank you by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

      In the hope that you'll come back to check replies to your post ...

      Please click on the link in my sig. I'm trying to fix the world, one person at a time :)

    85. Re:Thank you by sconeu · · Score: 1

      But the DRM in DavrOS is really bad.

      "You have violated copyright. You will be exterminated! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!!!!!"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    86. Re:Thank you by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah - Commodore execs were too busy being incompetent and sabotaging Amiga on their own to be that evil.

    87. Re:Thank you by torpor · · Score: 1

      Hey buddy, the Desktop war is *over*, Linux is running Trains and Mining equipment now, yo .. not Windows.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    88. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In 92 I was a was a preteen with a 486, DOS 5, and windows 3.1. I used netscape and the world wide web.

      Yeah, sure you were.

      Mosaic: April 1993
      Netscape: Oct. 1994

    89. Re:Thank you by vidarh · · Score: 1

      I turned it on, said "Wow it is fast", liked new workbench and there is that "32 bit" thing. Basically every program was already in 32bit.

      All programs were "32 bit". One of the beautiful things about the 68k line of CPU's was that they were all 32 bits internally - only the width of the data and address buss was different, ranging from 8 bit on the 68008 to 16 bit on the 68000 and 68010 to 32 bit on the later ones. The address buss also increased from 24 bit on the 68000 to 32 bit.

      So all programs for them were 32 bit clean from the start, apart from a few idiotic ones where people used the top 8 bits of addresses as data storage to save space, because the 68000 ignored it.

    90. Re:Thank you by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Commodore had been as ruthless in business as Microsoft, we'd be far ahead of where we are now.

      Commodore *was* ruthless. The book On The Edge documents that. The problem is that they kicked out the ruthless one, Jack Tramiel, founder of Commodore, just before the Amiga. Jack wanted to make low-end consumer computers, not business computers and not fancy graphics computers. He also wanted his son to run the company. Others in the company *did* want to go into these directions and also didn't think Jack's son was as savvy and skilled as Jack. The fight ended with Jack being kicked out. If both sides compromised a bit, it may have worked out. It sort of reminds me of the Farnsworth TV story: stubbornness on both sides gets in the way progress.
             

    91. Re:Thank you by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It was like surreal people were still in 16/32 bit age, being amazed to Windows 95.

      People were amazed at it compared to Windows 3.1. Remember that many wanted to still run their existing DOS programs, and that's the main reason they went with MS. Nobody ever claimed Windows-95 was technically the best thing around (except paid MS shrills).
           

    92. Re:Thank you by danwat1234 · · Score: 1

      Hello? Bittorent?

    93. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the alternate universe, it could very well have been Commodore Doors. It would probably be named Drawers.

      Though "Commodore Doors" would probably imply a much better advertising jingle than the horrible Start Me Up (by the Rolling Stones) that Microsoft used to promote Windows 95.

    94. Re:Thank you by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Valid speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It may well be the case that someone would have filled the void, but I don't think you can consider it a certainty.

      Nor can you take that nothing would fill the void as a certainty. Indeed, most of your argument is based upon everything else acting as if Windows were still around. That's a false premise as it is negated by the opening hypothesis, i.e., that Windows was not present. So your entire argument is based upon something that doesn't exist.

      I guess I have more faith in the American ingenuity than you, and that I believe there would be a real innovator (not a fake one like Bill Gates) to fill the void were Bill Gates not handed the gift from IBM.

      Microsoft really was in a somewhat unique place to do what they did

      That's true. They instituted the illegal per-processor licensing scheme to build and fortify their monopoly. It's all in the court transcripts, read it there if you'd like to learn more.

    95. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coulda sworn that was Apple that did that. Steve Wozniak is a genius.

    96. Re:Thank you by Trixter · · Score: 1

      We're talking about PCs, so not AmigaOS, but rather Geoworks. It was years ahead of its time and even more ahead of Windows, but Microsoft used its monopoly to muscle it out of competition.

    97. Re:Thank you by Lershac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      now you are just talking craziness. Craziness I say.

      How could we get by without myspace and lolcats and roflopters and such?

      can you imagine all of the people that would still be married if computers hadnt come along and empowered women to find someone they LIKED to screw?

      --
      Chuck
    98. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and the rest weren't proprietary.

      Everybody was trying to compete to control how you accessed the internet, not just Microsoft.

    99. Re:Thank you by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      By now, it would have proper virtual memory, memory protection and security.

      Had Windows failed in the market, the OS market would, probably be a much nicer place.

    100. Re:Thank you by pilbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate Windows like many others at Slashdot. But you gave a nice summary of the conditions that helped Windows thrive.

      Macs were the evil monsters at the time (late 80s early 90s). Hardware lock-in, expensive, anti-competitive. Thank goodness there was something else to keep us from tumbling down the Apple path. I also remembering running SCO (before they were evil) on a 486. The OS was about $2,500. A C compiler was another $2,500. You get the idea. They had no hope of mainstream acceptance at those prices and this was in the mid-90s. That was a lot of money.

      I hated Windows 95, but there was nothing else except OS/2 which was better, but like you say, IBM didn't have their head in the right place for the mainstream. Linux was cool but it was weeks of time wasted to get it set up on hardware and even then you couldn't get it all working. Even back then it was stable, but it was far from being a productivity tool without enormous effort. Not that I didn't learn a ton and not that it wasn't fun.

      Today... Microsoft is the evil company of our time. They were substandard in the 90s too but they were cheap and Windows ran on "stuff" people could reasonably afford. Times have changed and Microsoft hasn't. There are several other OS options that have stepped up to fill the void. In one release, Microsoft blinked and lost their marbles. They are still riding old momentum and developing to their 90s model that made them so successful. This isn't the 90s anymore. People aren't lined up outside Best Buy at midnight for their releases as was the case for Windows 95. I wasn't there for it but I heard all about it none-the-less.

      The landscape is what it is. Linux is what it is. Macs are what they are. Vista is what it is. Point is... progress is being made and we're not tumbling down a path that doesn't look brighter as time goes on. Things in general are improving in the computer world. Innovation is happening, people are learning and things are getting better regardless of what Microsoft execs like Steve Balmer try to do.

      If Microsoft went away tomorrow, things would be okay. Everyone would adapt with only slight pain. They were important, but that's not the case anymore. This is a really good thing. No one looks to Microsoft for innovation anymore. They aren't stopping anything. Hardware vendors who have subscribed to Vista are slowly wising up. That was the old model. Sales are down for new computers so numerous vendors are responding and starting to sell Linux systems. Apple is doing well.

      Definite speculation for sure. And this is mine... Things will continue to get better and Microsoft will continue to have a dwindling role in future improvements.

      --
      Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
    101. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people. "

      If it wasn't Windows, it would be another product. It was going to happen regardless of the presents of Microsoft.

    102. Re:Thank you by alba7 · · Score: 1

      There is a port running on Linux: http://www.han.de/~werner/ytree.html

      --
      Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
    103. Re:Thank you by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Yes, because Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and the rest weren't proprietary. Except that Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy had all been established (in those forms) years before the Internet broke through to mainstream awareness, let alone popularity.

      MSN came out in mid-to-late 1995, by which time the Internet was already pretty well-known, had glossy magazines devoted to it and was the all-round latest cool thing.

      It sounds laughable now, but I was genuinely worried at the time that this proprietary MSN crap would damage the popularity and growth of the Internet. They were forcing it via icons on the Windows 95 desktop, and although the Internet had made online culture cool and popular, and been an "open" success story, actual usage by the public was still quite niche by today's standards. It was by no means obvious that computerphobic Joe Public wouldn't see the icon on his desktop, get seduced by some shiny baubles and go for MSN, not realising what he'd lost.

      (Remember, if you think computer literacy is bad today, it was vastly worse in the mid-1990s).

      Everybody was trying to compete to control how you accessed the internet, not just Microsoft. By the time MSN came out, it had already been possible to buy "vanilla" Internet access for quite some time- either via TCP/IP (as normally happens today) or via a shell account (effectively using your computer as a terminal).

      And the fact that AOL et al were still operating mainly walled gardens is beside the point- MS only went with the Internet when it was clear that things were going that way anyway. They might deserve credit in certain respects, but not this one, and to imply that we should thank Bill Gates for Google(!) Earth just grates.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    104. Re:Thank you by mikael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'What was the year of Windows on the desktop?' and 'Why was Windows on the desktop successful?' and 'How did this happen?'

      It has been asked many times. It was around 1995/1996, when Windows 95/NT came out. Previously, everyone used Windows 3.1, which was only suitable for reading E-mail or playing solitaire or checkers.

      Microsoft's marketing slogan at the time was "Unix was legacy, Windows NT is the future", and the main selling feature was that Windows now offered a unified desktop API for writing applications, which could now all use the same command shortcuts.

      A good few workstation vendors like DEC and HP believed this hype, and gave up their own UNIX OS's to switch to Windows NT. At this time, DEC Alpha's were the most powerful chip at the time, and 3D graphics cards with texture mapping still cost a three to four figure sum.

      Such was Microsoft's grip on applications that some workstation vendors even had an add on i386 card just so that users could run their E-mail/spreadsheet applications in a window on a workstation.

      Now, application developers want to use "skins" to customize the look and feel of their products and websites. Also, E-mail and other applications are available through any number of web browers and websites, and video can be streamed direct from the network, and not require a CD-ROM.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    105. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm still waiting to find The Guy who actually bought Windows at the suggested retail price.

      Almost everyone either gets it bundled with a PC or can easily buy a discounted "OEM" copy from any computer retailer.

      Last time I was at Fry's they had one box of Vista Ultimate sitting forlornly in a display case next to Novell Netware.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    106. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to imagine a situation where Windows would not be around. IBM was in negotiations for many years to either buy Windows or buy out Microsoft, but was unable to complete the deal.

      So I don't see any alternative here than IBM OS/2, and there's lots of (business if not technical) reasons that would have been far worse than what we got from Microsoft.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    107. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Actually what happened is the Unix people saw Windows NT and crapped their pants and ran for the server room.

      If you look at the timeline, pretty much all Motif/CDE/X11 ground to a halt right in that 1993 timeframe. As a result the Unix Desktop was so archaic that it had to be rewritten almost from scratch starting in the late 90s through today.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    108. Re:Thank you by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, the big players at the time were os/2 and apple. You also had amiga and commodore, who didn't have the business sense to be able to do what MS did. os/2 and apple were both tied to proprietary hardware (os/2 particularly with their lack of support for non-ibm drivers) so if they stuck around we would likely still be paying $2-3k for PCs. I'm also calling bullshit that some random startup would be able to write a consumer friendly OS with good hardware support and somehow get one of the computer hardware vendors to back em up when ibm and apple were pretty much established and gunning for their own OS. Linux now is gaining ground (apple even more so) but it has taken a long time.

    109. Re:Thank you by the_olo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You completely omitted the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST, which were technologically-wise running circles around the ones you mentioned. They lacked proper business perspective, though, and the (anti-?)competitive climate being created by Microsoft became a nail to their coffins.

    110. Re:Thank you by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If Apple ended up dominating, we would probably be even further behind. Apple really didn't show much interest in improving their OS for a good part of a decade back in the 1990's, and the only reason they came out with OSX (and cheaper computers for that matter) was the Microsoft was having their lunch. If it wasn't for Microsoft Windows running on generic hardware, Apple would probably still be trying to sell $3000 computers running an OS that resembles Windows 3.1 more than anything else.

    111. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Microsoft almost immediately recognized that MSN was a mistake.

      It was on Pearl Harbor Day 1995 that they announced they were going to take on Netscape by integrating a web browser into Windows.

      And despite the fact that they were farting around with MSN, Windows 95 came with a TCP/IP stack and PPP driver which brought internet to the masses. At this time neither Apple nor IBM was shipping TCP/IP in the base OS.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    112. Re:Thank you by the_olo · · Score: 1

      Consider what else was out there about the time that, say, Windows 3.0 was really taking root as the OS of choice for the masses...

      ...Linux was just starting out...

      Windows 3.0 was released in 1990. Linus Torvalds started working on his kernel only in 1991. There was no Linux at that time you refer to.

    113. Re:Thank you by mikael · · Score: 1

      Many different hardware were ideas were tried out as add-on boards. You could get i860's with built in network card (so you could download images straight into video memory).

      There was the TIGA graphics architecture (TMS34010/34020/34082) which allowed you to write your own custom rasterization routines (drawing straight into the framebuffer). These boards actually offered 32-bit color (24-bit + 8-bit overlay) while Windows was still constrained to 16-bit color.

      However, both of these ideas were killed off by Intel when they introduced the VESA video-bus.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    114. Re:Thank you by mikael · · Score: 1

      (I don't think Windows shipped with built-in support for TCP/IP until Windows 98, but correct me if I'm wrong).

      Windows included a copy of the TCP/IP stack from FTP software with Windows 1995 (which in turn came from the Berkeley distribution). Before that, you had to get a custom DOS application from your ISP for sending/receiving E-mail and reading USENET.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    115. Re:Thank you by bobdevine · · Score: 1

      "The 8088 processor was chosen by IBM for the IBM PC specifically to hold personal computing back. The processor series was a very poor choice for a desktop machine."

      While that statement has the tone of a conspiracy, it is true that IBM didn't want cannibalization of their low- and mid-ranged lines.

      While use an Intel chip? An earlier offering, the DisplayWriter, used it so IBM had some in-house experience with the line. Also Intel was willing to sell in sufficient quantity at a reasonable price. So the Boca Raton folks went with parts to help them on their strategy of being quick-to-market.

    116. Re:Thank you by MoeDrippins · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're right. Microsoft slowed down computing tremendously so the "average joe" could catch up.

      Good or bad, that, remains to be seen.

      --
      Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
    117. Re:Thank you by kjart · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong to recognize an accomplishment if (in theory) someone else may have been able to do the same thing? "Gee, I would thank you for saving my life, but if you hadn't done it, someone else probably would've - and they would've done it better too."

    118. Re:Thank you by notaprguy · · Score: 1

      You're right...in part. Something else would have certainlyh taken Windows place...I'm guessing MANY different something else's. What Windows did that may not have happend if Microsoft (and Bill Gates/Ballmer running the company) hadn't come along was provide a "standardized" platform that would run on any X86 hardware. The result was an explosion of innovation in hardware and software and ultimately very very low costs compared to what came before Windows. The alternative may have looked a lot like Unix/Linux...lots of OS flavors that all worked differently and that didn't provide a standard platform for developers. I'm convinced that Windows was a big net positive in this respect.

    119. Re:Thank you by notaprguy · · Score: 1

      Hopefully not a repeat post...Firefox error. ;) You're right...at least in part. If there had been no Windows, we would have had something else. The problem is, we very well have had MANY something else's instead of one Windows. Microsoft's genius was in recognizing the value of a "standard" platform that would run on any X86 hardware and that provided a common set of API's that developers could use to build applications on. Apple only got that equation part right - a standard platform but it only ran on Apple hardware. Windows ran on thousands of different combinations of hardware and generated an incredible wave of software innovation. You can try to argue that the end result of having multiple platforms may have been better but that's hard to support with facts. Unix predated Windows in a wide range of flavors and the result was some very powerful software but nothing near the huge range of innovations that arose out of the Windows 'ecosystem.'

    120. Re:Thank you by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      The reason they chose that horrible text based system over Apple is because of the famously "closed" system that Apple represented. Are you just not aware that Apple/Macintosh controlled not only the software but the hardware distribution? With that amount of control, a person was unable to buy alternative hardware for the systems. On the flipside, an IBM PC user was able to purchase IBM clones, with standards compliant, generic hardware that worked in both IBM PCs and the clones. Plus, from what I've heard, the Apple hardware was a little more difficult to program and get to the back-end of the system, the terminal was not readily available. People still had direct hardware access in those DOS days. .

    121. Re:Thank you by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1, Insightful
      True that, except in those years, DOS/Windows licenses could be moved between machines.

      For the vast majority of users, this was a non-feature. They bought a computer, it 'came with Windows' then a few years later they bought a new computer and it 'came with Windows.' Nobody cared that their "Windows 3.1 Floppy Disks" could be installed onto another machine. The same applies today.

      For everyone I know, the issue of "OS Portability" isn't an issue at all.

    122. Re:Thank you by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says you. most business I know only upgrade their computers every 5-8 years. and then want to reuse their old licenses so they don't have to learn new software which don't have any features which they need.

      Windows doesn't have perceived value anymore. OSX leopard ships with every single feature Windows Vista Ultimate has for $129. why does Ultimate cost $300?

      Windows and Office are way over priced in a current marketplace.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    123. Re:Thank you by jtgd · · Score: 0

      ...which Linux/Unix may have done sooner were it not for Windows.

      --
      J
    124. Re:Thank you by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Your right, it could have been worse. I think I remeber hearing the suckiness of Dos/early windows is what inspired Linus to start linux in the first place. Would that have happened in an alternative universe where operating systems on the dominant pc architecture didn't suck? We might have something better than vista, but it wouldn't be foss, and their wouldn't be a foss alternative.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    125. Re:Thank you by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary notation and those who call you all the time with "windows questions".

      --
      She made the willows dance
    126. Re:Thank you by Skrapion · · Score: 4, Informative

      I installed Ubuntu late last year, and setting up multiple monitors still requires editing text files.

      Linux is friendly for people with a lot of skill, who need a lot from their computer and aren't afraid of the command line; or people with very little skill, who don't need to do anything but browse the web, check their email, and do some word processing.

      For everybody in-between, Windows is still a clear win.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    127. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      He was talking about when Windows 3.0 "was really taking root" not "when it was released." It was around 1994 when most people I knew were on Windows 3.x.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    128. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      Marketshare != Advancing Computing

      Ever used an Amiga from 1988-1990 or so? It was crazy what they performed like in comparison to other options at the time.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    129. Re:Thank you by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You'll be missed....

      I'm sorry, but why do we want users like this using linux?

      Why do we need to be the #1 OS? It's depressing the more automated everything becomes in linux... and I use Debian - not exactly the distro with the reputation for hand holding.

    130. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      Haha, I love John Dimmaggio as Ballmer. It sounds like Bender doing Ballmer! W00t.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    131. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      Way to completely disregard the good sides of having that level of control, from a programming and system design perspective. Also, it is obvious you have next to no first-hand experience with older Mac computers because you certainly had the ability to easily program to get direct hardware access, and also, there WAS NOT a CLI, it wasn't "not readily available", there just wasn't one. Just because the interface didn't require typing didn't mean it was somehow crippled from "really getting to the back-end" of it.

      rant rant rant. deep breath. coffee.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    132. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 1

      PC = Personal Computer! ;-)

    133. Re:Thank you by maxume · · Score: 1

      Hardware support? I kid...

      I'm not saying it is a no brainer, but your 'says you' applies just as much to your statement of Windows not having any perceived value as anything I said. What it comes down to (and this is just my opinion) is that software really isn't all that expensive at $500 a pop (especially if you are paying someone to use it). It is worth considering alternatives (because why not), but the alternatives need to be equivalent or better, not almost as good.

      I would claim that successful open source projects (Apache, linux on the server, things in that vein) are not only cheap to license but best of breed (Linux is sort of special case, it probably isn't better than Solaris on a big ol' Sun server, but it is best of breed on commodity hardware).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    134. Re:Thank you by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Ever used an Amiga from 1988-1990 or so? It was crazy what they performed like in comparison to other options at the time.

      So true. Amiga instantly raised the bar for multimedia machines.

      Apple should have taken one look at it and said, "Okay, from now on every machine we make has to be at least this good!"

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    135. Re:Thank you by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any way in which the 8088 was inferior to the 6809. Do you have something particular in mind?

    136. Re:Thank you by paedobear · · Score: 1

      Apple customers perhaps? You seem to have forgotten just how backwards MacOS got before the OSX re-boot.

    137. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      No Apple wasn't. At the time Win95 came out, the Mac sitting next to it had no TCP/IP.

      In fact MacTCP was only available to institutional site licenses, although it was frequently pirated by ISPs.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    138. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these 'cheap Macs' you speak of?

    139. Re:Thank you by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      And let's face it...in the early days Linux really was a bear to install and administer. You really did need to be a guru. Now? Not so much. I suspect that with ASUS EeePCs coming pre-installed with an easy, friendly, shiny happy Linux, people will finally be in their comfort zones with Linux. You don't buy an Eee with the expectation of a full-function computer, you buy an Eee with the expectation of a machine a little north of a PDA, a little south of a laptop. So you are more open to a new interface and new apps.

      I think Linux on the Desktop will fly, finally...but it will start its flight in unconventional laptops and desktops, not in standard desktops and desktop-replacement laptops.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    140. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZTree is a Win32 console mode clone.

    141. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Consider what else was out there about the time that, say, Windows 3.0 "

      Yes lets: http://www.pcmech.com/article/gem-os-the-other-windows/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager

      I'd say the parent was correct. If Microsoft hadn't been maintaining their monopoly by various legal and illegal means, Windows would have had to compete on the merits.

      I don't believe it would have won.

    142. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      MacTCP predates Windows 95 by *a long time*, but in case you still don't believe me you should read about Open Transport as well, which was shipping on new PowerMacs in May 2005, in other words, before Windows 95 was shipping.

      Here is the Power Mac 9500 which was out in May 1995 and featured OpenTransport, and an internal modem. http://support.apple.com/kb/SP394

      You could run a PPP stack and multitask internet applications cooperatively even on System 6 which is way older than Windows 95. Cute... mind you these machines required an external modem which you usually wouldn't buy from Apple as far as I remember.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    143. Re:Thank you by generica1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I made a typo, and meant to write 1995 up there instead of 2005, obviously. My bad.

      --
      JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
    144. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the answer would have been for people to go to Unix, and spend $900 for the OS?

    145. Re:Thank you by Directrix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's cool as long as you don't ever plan on applying security updates.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    146. Re:Thank you by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft went away tomorrow, there would be a flood of businesses running proprietary apps collapsing all around the world. At least until Wine achieves 100% parity ;-).

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    147. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, mac os anyone? Weren't they the first with a gui?

      Uhhh no, hipster. They were not the first with a gui. Apple stole the gui from Xerox, the same as Microsoft did. Go tell all your friends at the Mac Store.

    148. Re:Thank you by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1
      Some other aggressively marketed monopoly that we'd all be bemoaning to this day? Yes. Some kind and benevolent non-monopolistic break from the "Everyone has a price" eighties? No. I agree that MS wasn't necessary, but some monopoly was. And it would have been just as bad due to the whole "in it for the money" bit.

      Although one has to wonder what a OSS 90's would have looked like. We'd probably have some standards by now and maybe even one dominating distribution that everyone here could bitch about constantly..

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    149. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xerox PARC was their Palo Alto Research Centre, you clod.

    150. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get rid of that horrific myth once and for all? If there had been no Windows, we would have had something else, and chances are it would have been much better.

      3.1 was a great system .... then they went downhill ...
    151. Re:Thank you by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      One of my friends is always going on about work bench. Should take a look for historical purposes and to see what he's on about!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    152. Re:Thank you by wolftone · · Score: 1

      $30,000 isn't really the absurd low-ball estimate you apologize for. The median US wage for workers above the age of 16 for 2007 was $36,140. This disregards discrepancies for sex, age, and occupation. source.

    153. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where are these 'cheap Macs' you speak of?

      Try the Mac Mini, for $600. Compare the engineering to anything you can get on the PC side for $600 and it's a pretty amazing little beast.

      Arguably the original G3 iMac was the first "cheap Mac," at $1200, which seems like a lot now, but remember that most off-the-shelf PCs were at least $1000 in 1998, not including monitor, and they were underfeatured compared to the iMac. If you wanted something cheaper, you pretty much had to build it yourself.

      Don't forget where we've been. Macs used to cost upwards of $2000 on the low end, so anything $1000 or less deserves to be called 'cheap.'

      PCs, by contrast, sank into the 'dirt cheap' category by getting down into C=64 or even Vic-20 price territory...

    154. Re:Thank you by wolftone · · Score: 0, Troll

      We want users like that using linux because if they can migrate easily, that will disrupt the monopoly standing of Microsoft. Should they be using Debian or Slackware? Maybe not.

      Ubuntu was made with them in mind, so if it fails... well, it fails. There are still enough things wrong with Ubuntu (and with the market's opinion of driver compatibility) that people who aren't devout Geeks are likely to turn away. If their (probably moderately expensive) printer/scanner doesn't work or if they have to edit their xorg.config for things to work as they might otherwise expect, I entirely can't say I blame them.

      That being said, if we want to upset the balance of power so that there isn't a monopolist serving us the #1 OS, serving users who don't want to fight their OS to get their hardware to work is an important step. If you don't like automation, use Slackware. The Ubuntu forums will probably really miss you.

    155. Re:Thank you by Two9A · · Score: 1

      That's the "fake" key for Office 4.3/95; the OEM keys for Windows 95 were 17 digits, and split into a 5-7-5 pattern. Only with Windows 98 and Office 97 did the full alphanumeric "five 5's" key come into effect.

      Why do I know this? No reason ;)

      --
      xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
    156. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows only "allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers" because it was the only one to be allowed to do so.

      Windows did nothing that wouldn't have been done otherwise if some other product were allowed to do so.

    157. Re:Thank you by Kharny · · Score: 1

      remember that a company doesn't pay what you get, they pay approximately twice what you actually get.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    158. Re:Thank you by Kharny · · Score: 1

      After messing with ubuntu 7.10 64 bit for 2 days just to get the dhcp setup working, I can honestly say it still has some way to go. Hardy heron is slightly better, but bugs with wine.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    159. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >DOS 3.5

      There's no such thing: Compaq had a v3.31, but after that v4.0 was released.

      I know you want to show off your 'leetness and all, but making things up doesn't help do that.

    160. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I don't see any alternative here than IBM OS/2, and there's lots of (business if not technical) reasons that would have been far worse than what we got from Microsoft. Examples?
    161. Re:Thank you by Bigman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish you'd tell my family that XP "just works" then. I've taken to wearing my "I'm not here to fix your computer" t-shirt whenever I go and see family, because I tend to spend most of my time when I'm visiting running malware destroyers, anti-virus and trying to find why bits of hardware that used to work fine are now not working.
      Windows has wasted more of my life than I care to think about.. the only windows systems I have used that "just worked" have been at work, where they have teams of dedicated professionals keeping them running 24/7.
      I'm not saying that Linux would necessarily be any better, I'm just saying that the old saw "Linux is not for mom and pop" is getting old; Windows is not for mom and pop either, unless son doesn't mind spending all his visits fixing the computer.

      --
      *--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
    162. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 1
      Definitely! :-) Workbench has indeed some cool features that have not been duplicated yet on any other platform:
      • Icons are separate files with a ".info" file extension. Workbench by default displays only files with an associated icon. This provides less clutter for the user's desktop, since only the files they're supposed to see are being shown. Upon selecting the "Show All Files" menu item, every file is displayed.
      • Icons can be passed as arguments to an application. To do that, you can either double click on an icon, which passes it to an associated application, or you click on the application and then shift-click on the icons to be passed as arguments, then finally shift-double-click on the last icon.
      • Icons can have parameters: In the Tool Types editor (which is called by the "Info..." menu item), you can configure key/value pairs for every icon. Most applications document which key/value pairs they support, and Workbench itself also supports a couple. For example, you can configure an application's icon to always open the application on a specific public screen, at a specific location on the screen, and so on. Eat that, X-resources! ;-)
      • The Commodities Exchange: Commodities are like demons in Unix or services in Windows. They have an input event broker component that listens on particular input events (that have been configured by the user, in the commodities' tool types). Commodities can have user interfaces. With the Commodities Exchange program, users can configure their commodities. Normally, you set up a keyboard shortcut for the Exchange, then you can easily access all the commodities. Popular commodities include stuff that changes the behavior of the user interface.
      • Screens: A feature of the underlying 'intuition.library' and 'graphics.library' are so-called 'screens'. They're used to group windows, much like multiple desktops on X. Every screen can have their own size and resolution, and the user can rearrange them, by switching or dragging. There are public screens and private screens.
      • Command line interpreter: The CLI provides a command-line shell much like those known from Unix. Except, AmigaOS CLI is based on TRIPOS, a minicomputer OS. It has a slightly different approach than the popular Unix shells. For example, every command has an argument template which can be queried by the user, using the "?" question mark after the command name. Then the template is displayed which already tells a lot about the arguments needed by the command. The argument mechanism provides for readable command semantics, like "copy file to target".
      • There's much more ... :-)
    163. Re:Thank you by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Sounds interesting! The CLI environment sounds a bit like Cisco's IOS. the "?" is a life saver when you can't exactly remember what that blasted command was!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    164. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 1

      You're right -- their first GUI-based computer was named the "Alto" (1973). The first commercially available one was called the "Star" (1981).

    165. Re:Thank you by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Windows doesn't have perceived value anymore. OSX leopard ships with every single feature Windows Vista Ultimate has for $129. why does Ultimate cost $300?

      Firstly, you must compare the retail Leopard with a Windows upgrade licence, because that is how Leopard is priced. So US$220.

      Secondly, there is at least one major feature Vista Ultimate has that OS X lacks - Media Centre. Many people will happily pay the extra $90 for that.

    166. Re:Thank you by Daver297 · · Score: 1

      it definitely did, I was around in those days as well and when I went from my C128 to my PC with Windows, and my 40 meg hard drive, I thought I was the Man.. I recall saying" 40 Meg hard Drive, I will never fill that up) ahh.. now Even I have worked on larger projects

      --
      -Daver
    167. Re:Thank you by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, what the other reply said about workers costing more than their salary (I phrased my comment poorly in this regard, but it is part of what I meant).

      Second, what do you think the median wage is for people who spend a significant chunk of their week using a general purpose computer and office software? I don't have any numbers, but I am happy assuming that it is above the overall median.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    168. Re:Thank you by beowulf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Back in '86, you could buy two $2500 Mac Pluses for the cost of a single IBM AT (which didn't include a monitor).

      Just like today, Macs can be "cheap" if you compare them to their competition.

    169. Re:Thank you by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Didn't IBM have a thing called OS/2 Warp?

    170. Re:Thank you by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

      Killjoy!!! Just let the joke stand so we all can enjoy it.

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    171. Re:Thank you by funfail · · Score: 1

      In the alternate universe, it could very well have been Commodore Doors.
      Not likely. Opel would sue.
    172. Re:Thank you by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does charge less, to OEMs that is. That is known as price discrimination. An excerpt from the definition:

      price discrimination can be a feature only of monopoly markets.
      I also note, they charge less to students too. Though I hate to admit it, I paid ~$66 for a copy of the full version of XP pro when I was in School.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    173. Re:Thank you by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Nice attempt at re-writing history.

      It was Apple that brought personal computing to the masses. Apple was the one that started the Personal Computer. IBM followed suite and chose to use Microsoft's DOS as the OS for the IBM PC.

      Thus, Apple and IBM brought the personal computer into the lives of average people. Microsoft came along for the ride on the coat tails of IBM.

    174. Re:Thank you by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Can we get rid of that horrific myth once and for all?

      I know it's trendy to bash Microsoft, but the GP is stating a FACT not a MYTH.

      Fact is "Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people."

      Myth is "If it wasn't for Windows, the average person would have a PC".

      Get the semantics right...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    175. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about Jack Tremiel on the the Atari side... Oh wait he he founded Commodore.. (Head explodes).. It's all Jack's fault

    176. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, except those who chose not to get a pirate version.

      fixed it for u
    177. Re:Thank you by flnca · · Score: 1

      Yes, but OS/2 came much later. OS/2 1.x didn't have a GUI. OS/2 2.x had a very good GUI, but it came in the mid-90ies, almost 10 years later than AmigaOS (just like Windows 95). AmigaOS was published first in 1985. OS/2 Warp 3 and 4 came after 1996. But I think it's sad than IBM canned OS/2 (although it lives on in eComStation).

    178. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would have most likely adopted the same evil practices Microsoft used, and we'd probably end up with a similarly crappy system. They might have turned just as evil, but I don't see why they would have been crappy. They were not crappy back then, whereas MS-dos and later windows started with very weak foundations, and only improved clumsily and slightly later (clumsily because of the backward compatibility requirement with something crappy)
    179. Re:Thank you by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      The first PCI PowerMacs actually did not ship with OpenTransport, although an extremely buggy beta version was available later. OpenTransport also did not initially work on Performas and other consumer Macs.

      Not to mention that OpenTransport didn't have a PPP driver until the 1.2 version in 1996.

      Believe me, I was active in the Mac community at the time, and a late 1995 Macintosh did not come with any form of consumer Internet support.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    180. Re:Thank you by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      I was able to get online with Win95 and it was a pre-release version too :)

    181. Re:Thank you by multisync · · Score: 1

      So was I, in fact I believe I first connected directly to the Internet with Windows for Worgroups 3.11. But you had to run an add-on client to initiate a tcp/ip connection. Did your pre-release version of Win95 have built-in, native support for tcp/ip? I honestly don't remember.

      Before that, my earliest experiences with the Internet were via a local BBS. You would connect to them with something like Procomm Plus then establish a dial-up connection to the Internet with one of their modems. You could browse "the web" - such as it was - with lynx, and download files to a big, common directory using ftp. It was a lot of fun trawling through the files in the common directory looking at what everyone else had downloaded.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    182. Re:Thank you by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I don't remember either. A friend set it up. It was my first experience on the Internet/Web and didn't knew what he was doing. But I do remember this... After the dial process (the modem sounds) another window poped up that looked a lot like a terminal (grey text on black background) and is where I typed a username and a password. Username and password were not stored in the settings, I had to enter them each time I loged in. I remember the font of the terminal was Fixedsys (great font by the way!). If any of this reminds you anything, then please tell me what that software or add-on was. I am looking for a way to fully emulate that era inside qemu :-)

      At that era, I also connected a couple of times to a BBS with Telix :) (you can still find Telix as shareware). Not, actually my friend connected just to try the connection. He created me an account on the BBS and I was supposed to pay a check to enable it but never did that :-P It all seemed magic and beatiful back then. It's because it is the way I entered the world of the Web and the Internet.

    183. Re:Thank you by multisync · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but this O'Reilly guide to setting up a PPP connection in Win95 sounds a lot like what you describe. At the bottom of the page there is a graphic of the Connection Terminal Window, where you enter your username and password.

      I recall using a dialer that the isp provided, but I'm pretty sure I had to set up tcp/ip manually (for Win 3.11 at any rate).

      At that era, I also connected a couple of times to a BBS with Telix :)

      Yeah, thanks for mentioning that. I have fond memories of Telix, too, but have to admit I thought Procomm Plus was the cat's you-know-what.

      I've thought about recreating old setups in a vm, but unfortunately I didn't save much of my old software and I didn't do much to record what we did to get things working. I really took things for granted. I'm more diligent about documenting things now, but still waste too much time on Google searching for solutions to problems I solved a while ago but never documented ;)

      Have fun with qemu.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    184. Re:Thank you by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's it! Thanks :D If you need Telix, I can provide -- it's a Shareware after all ;-)

    185. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly believe you make sense, and I doubt Linux could really take root as Windows, there's a lot of research going on in windows which are yet to be out and are meant for the future, Linux has no cash to put into these. For example, tablet PCs! Even Mac has no ground in it, but remember microsoft started all these research, years back. People talk about iPhone, let me remind them that Windows Mobile generates far more revenue than iPhone can ever, cos it's been out 8 years back though silent.
      A lot if guys talking here are all geeks, differentiating a 64 bit from 16bit, the people that are targetted dont give a damn! A nursing mother of 4 kids doesnt know anything more than a Start Button, Microsoft Word and Shut Down the PC. Give her Linux and she calls the technician that she wanted a "Computer". Those are the people that matter.

  4. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    which guy had a sex change?

    1. Re:So... by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

      Steve Ballmer's bitch

    2. Re:So... by SwiftWing2002 · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought before reading the article. I know. I know. We never RTFA. But I just had to know which guy had a sex change. The answer was quite disappointing.

    3. Re:So... by Brain_Recall · · Score: 4, Informative
      I had to take a second look for that. A little reading does the trick:

      Present for the reunion was office manager Miriam Lubow (center of new picture), who missed the original sitting due to a snowstorm. (When Lubow, now retired, first met Gates, she couldn't believe that disheveled kid was the president.) Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace (top center), who died in 2002; after leaving Microsoft in 1983, he pioneered the idea of shareware.
    4. Re:So... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      her name is Chaire.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  5. 11/12 by jamesh · · Score: 1

    When I counted the people in each photo I thought 'wow! what are the chances of 11 people alive in 1978 still being alive now?'. Having read the article I find that there were actually 12 people supposed to be at the shoot but one was absent, and one had passed away in the intervening 30 years so it's actually 11/12 people are still alive 30 years later, but still, not a bad effort!

    1. Re:11/12 by mutende · · Score: 2, Informative

      Come on. The average age seems to be less than 30 years on the 1978, hence the average would be less than 60 today. I'd say the chances that all the people still being alive are pretty good. Cheers.

      --
      Unselfish actions pay back better
    2. Re:11/12 by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      well working making a new company having it grow to such a large level tends to put extra age on some people. Heck look at the guy in the middle in the before and after pic. Before he was a young guy and the other picture he is a older lady, that looks more like a traditional grandmother image.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:11/12 by maxume · · Score: 1

      All we need is an actuary, they would have more than a hunch, they would have a hunch backed by tables and formulas.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:11/12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1978 was not that long ago. Hell, your parents were certainly alive in 1978 (unless you're 10).

  6. are all the people gates and jobs backstabbed by unity100 · · Score: 1

    through the early years of microsoft gonna be in the picture too ?

    1. Re:are all the people gates and jobs backstabbed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, can't do, I didn't bring the panorama lens.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. It pays to RTFA, not just see the photos by wesley96 · · Score: 1

    There are 11 persons in both pictures, and since it's supposed to be a retake of the same people 30 years later, it completely baffled me as to why the first photo had 2 women, while the second one had 3.

    I mean, like, "WTF? did someone have a sex change?"

    Then I read the article and went, "OOH."

    --
    Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
    1. Re:It pays to RTFA, not just see the photos by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I must have missed that. I read TFA and didn't see anything about a sex change, but I did see that Miriam wasn't present in the first due to a snow storm but was present in the second one. That seems to account for there being 2 in the first, and 3 in the second, but like I said maybe I missed something.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:It pays to RTFA, not just see the photos by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Well, MS guy changed sex so what? Unix scene has much more interesting people, even the authors of current de-facto standard Unix software.

  8. Photos are too small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have normal sized versions of the photos?

    1. Re:Photos are too small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like the abnormal sized ones? Actually I wish they included some pies and eggs in the photo just to show they are good sports.

  9. For those in the UK or with a proxy by eddy_crim · · Score: 2, Informative

    The BBC has some footage of the new photo being take on the iplayer
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00c6sdc.shtml?src=ip_mp

    Its part of a documentary about bill gates for the money programme. Bit dumbed down for non geek audiences but interesting none the less if only to laugh at all the 70's gates footage and Ballmers big shiney head. Oh and I cant find where but at some point bill gates jumps over a chair... there has to be some jokes in there!

    --
    hmmm.
  10. Should have left it as is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 70s photo is of of a bright eyed bushy tailed group ready to take on the world. It tells a story, smacks of potential and is a slice of history.

    The current photo is a happy snap without a story. It begs the question "Why?" It adds an ending to the 1970s photo that would have best been left unwritten, allowing each viewer of the 1970's photo to make their own judgement of history. The photo is like a cliched ending to a stereotypical Hollywood morality tale.

    1. Re:Should have left it as is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say that about music groups from the sixties and eighties (Strawberry Alarm Clock, Peter Gabriel), but they are still going strong today.

    2. Re:Should have left it as is by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      The photo is like a cliched ending to a stereotypical Hollywood morality tale.

      For what some people paid they could have at least given out free popcorn and soda.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    3. Re:Should have left it as is by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The current photo is a happy snap without a story. It begs the question "Why?"

      The only question that comes to mind when looking at this before-after photo exercise is : is it better to be bright, young and wearing atrocious 70s clothes, or be a fat middle-aged ex-computer wizz-kid ?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    4. Re:Should have left it as is by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It adds an ending to the 1970s photo that would have best been left unwritten, allowing each viewer of the 1970's photo to make their own judgement of history. Rubbish. History has been written, photo or no photo. The facts of the past 38 years haven't been altered by taking this photo in any way, nor will this photo change anyone's judgement of history.

      You can argue that the photo's pointless, but suggesting that people would be better served by not having this information is ridiculous. This isn't some pretentious open-ended novel we're talking about.

    5. Re:Should have left it as is by syousef · · Score: 1

      The 70s photo is of of a bright eyed bushy tailed group ready to take on the world.

      Are you looking at a different picture? I see a bunch of drug taking, 70s fashion victims that've been up all night coding and plotting to take over the world from their parent's basements.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Should have left it as is by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Drug taking? I don't think so. If that were the case, they might have been able to release some decent software. I see trend-following whores instead.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  11. My IT Dept by Twide · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's odd.. my very own IT department looks much more like that 70's photo than the current one..

    1. Re:My IT Dept by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're working in an aspiring, upstart, bring-on-the-world IT department rather than a bureaucratic, overbloated and overfed-satisfied IT department.

      I wouldn't consider that's a bad thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:My IT Dept by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I thought it meant he's working for shit money because clearly none of his coworkers can afford decent clothing.

    3. Re:My IT Dept by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Decent clothing covers the body and hold you warm in cold weather.

      Fancy clothing contains a wearable computer.

      You ARE aware that we're talking about geeks, yes? :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Microsofts heritage by ^Case^ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This picture got me thinking.

    For all the things people dislike about Microsoft, even the stuff people sees as evil one should still acknowledge the contribution made by Bill Gates and Microsoft to the world as it is today. I am by no means a fan of Microsoft, yet had it not been for the visions of Bill Gates I sincerely doubt that computers would have gained the same traction in society as they have today.

    I often seem to forget this when shouting my mouth off about how bad Microsofts software is or how evil Microsoft is. I will try to remember this the next time I get into a "how I hate Microsoft" frenzy.

    1. Re:Microsofts heritage by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody doubts Bill Gates' vision helped bring computers to the masses a great deal, nor that OS and PC uniformising, sad as it is, is what brought down the cost of computing. The beef most people have with Microsoft is (1) how they got there, and (2) software quality : they copied, bought, monopolized, bribed and ransomed their way to the top, and they couldn't come up with one truly good software product if they lives depended on it.

      Other than that, they're great guys.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Microsofts heritage by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Microsoft hadn't been the ones, someone else, or more likely several someone elses, would have. And frankly, chances are good that the state of computing in general would be ahead of where we are without Microsoft, because their monopolistic approach has stifled innovation and competition.

      In the early 80s there were plenty of smaller players in the marketplace all with interesting products and different ideas. A more natural outgrowth of that which maintained that balance would have been much healthier. And while that probably would have led to a period of incompatibility and lack of standards, the lack of strong defacto standards may well have created a push for more industry standards earlier. By now many of those things that are still needed (standards for document, and multimedia interchange) would have long been settled.

      For all the advantages that computers confer on society, don't forget the huge losses in both time and money that the poor quality of Windows and its apps have caused.

    3. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people, were it not for them we could be using better products. OS/2... BeOS...
      Saying what you are saying is like a slave saying in the 1880's, "I am so grateful at my kind owners for after beating me and making me work all day, they actually feed me leftovers and don't wake me up in the middle of the night." Sheez.

    4. Re:Microsofts heritage by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


      yet had it not been for the visions of Bill Gates I sincerely doubt that computers would have gained the same traction in society as they have today.

      Ridiculous. Computers gained the traction they did in society because they greatly increased productivity, and we'd already developed the technology (the silicon chip) to make them cheaply. Bill Gates just was able to capitalize on those two circumstances.

      If Gates hadn't have done it, someone else would have. Jobs and Apple? IBM? Hell, maybe even Commodore.

      The path taken would have been different for sure, but the entry of computers into society at the level they exist was invevidible. Maybe cross-platform applications would have become far more prevalent than they are now without Gates and Company trying to stifle any such products, and the OS would become largely irrelevant. Really, the OS IS irrelevant to the end-user. The only thing that provides any value are the applications.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Microsofts heritage by Dave+Klecha · · Score: 1

      Maybe. One of the things Microsoft brought to the table was the marketing and the push to bring desktop computing into enterprise. I don't think we're where we are if that doesn't happen, and lots of others had the opportunity to go there, but balked for whatever reason.

      The other question, the old time-travel question, is how different do things have to be before we're not recognizably in the same place. One could almost argue that there's the David-Goliath thing going on, motivating people. Without that, not as many are as invested in bringing their A game or getting into the game in the first place.

      And then again, in the absence of a big evil like Microsoft, someone else could very well have taken its place entirely and we could be indistinguishably in the same place, complete with big, cumbersome, monopolistic software giant that stifles innovation, etc. Jobs thought it would be IBM; but for Microsoft it might have been.

    6. Re:Microsofts heritage by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Apparently none of those other companies had a CEO with the business sense to take them towards the top. You're talking about a time when engineers were just engineers and not meant to be personable at the same time. I doubt most of those companies had a business minded person running the show.

      Bill Gates had a business mind AND he could program. That is why Microsoft came out on top.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:Microsofts heritage by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      Your "what if" is just as good as my "what if". The reality is, Microsoft was the player who did what it did. You could sit here and go "what if that had not happened" all you want but it's not going to change the fact that it was Microsoft who was at the top of this game.

      The reality is, the reason why there were so many smaller players is because, guess what? Everyone wants to be on top or everyone thinks they can do something better than the other guy.

      Not everyone cares, obviously, because great ideas and smart people tend to fizzle out all of the time even if it was "years ahead" of its time.

      Even now, we have this problem of early computing but in the linux world. Things Microsoft worked hard at changing are STILL prevalent in the Linux software industry.

    8. Re:Microsofts heritage by samkass · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates had a business mind AND he could program. That is why Microsoft came out on top.

      No, not really. Bill Gates had a business mind AND a ruthlessness, and was in the software industry at the right time with rich parents. That's why Microsoft came out on top. Bill Gates' ability to program (such as it was) had virtually no effect on Microsoft's success that I can see.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    9. Re:Microsofts heritage by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Um... let's see.. a CEO who understands the business or a CEO that has no idea about the business...

      Can you see how his ability to program is helpful now?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    10. Re:Microsofts heritage by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Hell, maybe even Commodore. I doubt it. Although I was too young to have much knowledge of the company back when I was actually using an Amiga, from what I gather Commodore were the masters of bungling. Check out Ars Technica's series of articles about the rise and fall of the Amiga. They're quite interesting.
    11. Re:Microsofts heritage by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      invevidible

      Wow. I bow to your superior Googlewhack.

    12. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that if Microsoft never existed NOONE ELSE in the world could ever have written an operating system? Not Apple, not Commodore, not Atari, not IBM, not the BSD folks, not Linux developers, etc? Only Microsoft has ever able to build an operating system that uniquely can do ... what exactly?


      I see this claim (or ones just like it) made a lot, but it strikes me as being the height of arrogance, and is reflective of the attitude that enables the continuation of Microsoft's continuing abuse of the market.

    13. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contribution to the world? The only thing they contributed is billions of lost hours of works, information that's trapped forever in proprietary file formats and a market that pratically has only one choice in operating system (though that is starting to change, thanks to Linux and Apple once they switched to Unix).

      Had it not been for the "vision" of Bill Gates, someone else would have filled the void. Maybe we would still have Atari, Commodore/Amiga, BeOS, etc. Apple was the lucky one, even if it barely survived the 1990's.

      Don't kid yourself: if it had not been Microsoft, it would have been some other company or maybe even companies, all working together with cross-platform file formats. There was already signs of it, like the TIFF graphics file format.

      It's getting better though, with things like MP3 and AAC, MPEG-4 and H.264, JPEG and PNG, XML, the UTF-8 character set, etc.

    14. Re:Microsofts heritage by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft hadn't been the ones, someone else, or more likely several someone elses, would have. And frankly, chances are good that the state of computing in general would be ahead of where we are without Microsoft, because their monopolistic approach has stifled innovation and competition.

      Odds are, they exact opposite would have happened. Absent Microsoft and their drive for uniformity - the [IBM compatible] PC world is likely to remain chaotic and fragmented. The likely result is businesses and individuals flock even faster than they were already doing at the time to the one island of stability amid the chaos - Apple.
       
      Who at the time was an even more evil and monopolistic monolith than Microsoft.
       
       

      In the early 80s there were plenty of smaller players in the marketplace all with interesting products and different ideas. A more natural outgrowth of that which maintained that balance would have been much healthier. And while that probably would have led to a period of incompatibility and lack of standards, the lack of strong defacto standards may well have created a push for more industry standards earlier. By now many of those things that are still needed (standards for document, and multimedia interchange) would have long been settled.

      Wishful thinking without a shred of basis in reality.
    15. Re:Microsofts heritage by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Did his programming help him understand the software business? I hate to think how much money Knuth could have made.

    16. Re:Microsofts heritage by Nooface · · Score: 1

      And frankly, chances are good that the state of computing in general would be ahead of where we are without Microsoft, because their monopolistic approach has stifled innovation and competition.

      I believe this assumption is flawed. I would argue there is exactly a 50% chance that computing would have improved without Microsoft, and a 50% chance that the alternative time-line would have produced a worse outcome for users (by current standards).

      The challenge of analyzing alternative outcomes is that it is impossible to determine what other factors would have risen to dominance to in determining the course of the industry in the absence of Microsoft. For example, just to take the context of your own statement (Microsoft's monopolistic approach), it is easy to forget that when Microsoft emerged, the IT industry was already in the grips of a different monopoly - IBM.

      Had Microsoft not created a level playing field enabling the growth of a multi-vendor PC industry, IBM might have been in a better position to sustain its monopoly by constraining the growth of PCs so that they remained in the "comfort zone" of its own business model, leaving the choicest opportunities for its lucrative mainframe/mini-computer business. In this "alternative universe", we might all still be using variations of mainframe terminals for our day-to-day computing.

      Do you really thank that state of computing would be "ahead" of where we are today?

      --

      Nooface
      In Search of the Post-PC Interface
    17. Re:Microsofts heritage by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      from what I gather Commodore were the masters of bungling.

      They were. But what likely wound up killing off Commodore was Irving Gould (the owner). From what I've read in "On The Edge" Irving was a short-term thinker who only cared about living a jet-set lifestyle. He left the management (but not the budgeting) to the president, Jack Tramiel.

      Tramiel was a fierce competitor who cut his teeth in the typewriter and calculator business (both lost to the Japanese). He made his mistakes as well, but the guy was as ruthless as Bill Gates but was never given full reign of the company. Irving eventually fired him after Jack made a play to gain a greater control over Commodore. (Though some dispute this as the reason). Jack had an enormous instinct to cut prices to shut out competition. Had he not been fired and actually got greater control of Commodore, we might have had the cheap computers that exist today 20 years ago.

      The genius of Bill Gates is he realized the OS could be used as a leveraging point. Before him, nobody really concentrated much on the operating system. It was really just a money loser you put in to sell the hardware. Bill realized you could leverage the OS to make money on the software (and develop a monopoly based on people writing for your OS).

      --
      AccountKiller
    18. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut up.

      If "several someone elses" had "been the ones" IT people would be completely in the shit right now.

      Hey guys "Doom 5" has been released, but only for XYZ OS. Do you realize what other kinds of bullshit we'd have to deal with if there wasn't a "standard" OS?

      For all the crying and nerd-rage that happens about MS, they've given us all a common base. They've saved us from the family-phone-call of...
      "Hey I can't get PhotoshopSXU ot run"
      "Okay, what OS are you running?"
      "Bwoshgid1.2"
      "Uhh... what?"

    19. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had he not been fired and actually got greater control of Commodore, we might have had the cheap computers that exist today 20 years ago.

      Indeed, we could have. Oh wait, that's right - we did!

      Best-selling computer of all time; introduced 1982.

    20. Re:Microsofts heritage by multisync · · Score: 1

      Odds are, they exact opposite would have happened. Absent Microsoft and their drive for uniformity - the [IBM compatible] PC world is likely to remain chaotic and fragmented.

      You are giving credit to the wrong entity. It was the team who designed the original IBM PC who decided to use an open architecture and off-the-shelf parts, meaning others could compete against them but allowing a market for the personal computer to grow as a result. All Microsoft did was perfect grabbing on to the coat tails of others and hanging on.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    21. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the early 80's, exchanging data between two "personal Computers" from different manufacturers required hauling one of the boxes to the other's place, two connectors, a cable, a soldering iron, a scope and a couple of manuals.

      Roughly five years later, if you could fit a floppy disk into the slits of two different computer systems, you could easily exchange data between them, all by virtue of the de facto standards Windows set (512 byte sectors, FAT, ascii extensions for non english languages, etc).

      Of course, FAT16 may not be the computer scientist's dream of a file system for USB sticks, but, arguably, without Microsofts monopoly, people would still struggle with reading their Sony Memory Sticks on their TRS-80,000 Computers, and they would have to ditch their Monitor every time they get a new computer.

      I know that the VGA adapter has nothing to do with Windows, but the "standard" (or, to some, the "lowest common denominator" ;-) windows meant that computer users came to expect and demand a fair amount of interoperability in hard- and software from computer and software manufacturers that freed resources for fast development.

    22. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the early 80's, exchanging data between two "personal Computers" from different manufacturers required hauling one of the boxes to the other's place, two connectors, a cable, a soldering iron, a scope and a couple of manuals.

      *Ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem

    23. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a disclaimer, I don't hate Microsoft; but a lot of younger people may not realize that there were many extremely good products available before MSWindows, or that IBM wrote much of the original windows code, if not most, that started Microsoft down the MSWindows path before IBM and Microsoft split up.

      I think much of the Microsoft resentment came in the early 1990's because they would license other company's source code long enough to modify and call it their own; then they would commit illegal acts to force those companies out of business.

      They lost many court cases, but were never really hurt, and never apologized.

      When asked about the more than 35,000 people who lost jobs, Bill Gates would reply flippantly, like, (paraphrasing) "There are a lot of talented people working in this industry. I'm just giving them an opportunity to work for us."

      He drove dozens of companies and software packages out of the market by using illegal or unethical activities.

      They were caught putting software specific code into MSWindows to crash competing products, specifically Netscape and that memory management software they copied Memory Manager from (sorry I'm writing from memory, can't recall the name). (Anyone remember the Windows code that detected Netscape and opened more than 10 windows to overflow the memory buffer?) Microsoft lost both of those cases, but both companies were already pretty much dead by the time it got out of court.

      Microsoft had destroyed Apple as well. Apple only exists now, because the Federal Trade Commission said that Apple was the only company preventing Microsoft from being a monopoly and threatened to enact antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and break the company up if Apple went under. So Microsoft then became the second largest shareholder in Apple, allowing them to get back on their feet.

      As far as driving down hardware costs, how's that even possible when many OSs (not UNIX) used to be free? "Large Scale Integration" is what drove down prices and made the PC accessible to the public. The process was happening long before Microsoft even mattered. How did Microsoft make cellphones available to the masses? They didn't, nor did they make PCs available to the masses.

      These days, installing MSWindows adds around $100 to computer prices, A little less for COAs or "Home" edition.

    24. Re:Microsofts heritage by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      What vision?

      Microsoft did pretty little innovation, often being second to market and muscling out its competition, through, perhaps, some of the shadiest deals known to man.

    25. Re:Microsofts heritage by mikael · · Score: 1

      In the early 80's, exchanging data between two "personal Computers" from different manufacturers required hauling one of the boxes to the other's place, two connectors, a cable, a soldering iron, a scope and a couple of manuals.

      No real data communications engineer would travel anywhere without his RS-232 breakout box.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    26. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody doubts Bill Gates' vision helped bring computers to the masses a great deal

      Ummm... you may want to read all the "Insightful" comments above yours.
    27. Re:Microsofts heritage by samkass · · Score: 1

      Nope. Your two sentences are complete non-sequitors. Gates was a bad programmer from all the reports I've heard, and if his skill at such was linked to Microsoft's success, they would have disappeared long ago. No, it was simply his mother's connections with IBM, his trust fund, and his ruthlessness to take others work and resell it that gave Microsoft the MS-DOS and Windows monopoly. And with a cash cow like that, you have plenty of room to get things wrong and make enemies without having to bet the company, which is a great way to succeed.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    28. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about how Steve Jobs also copied, monopolized, bribed, and ransomed? I forgot, if you say that you get modded down.

    29. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are all a bunch of goofs. Do you also rail against GM, Ford, Citibank, etc,etc. For all your whining about Microsoft, a large percentage of you use Windows, even you Linux zealots who claim not to.

    30. Re:Microsofts heritage by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      For all the advantages that computers confer on society, don't forget the huge losses in both time and money that the poor quality of Windows and its apps have caused.
      That's a pretty anti-Microsoft-skewed statement that is kind of ridiculous. The real story is that those Microsoft folks aggressively pursued the notion that they could build a successful business by focusing on PCs. For all of the "losses in both time and money" the can be attributed to imperfect, or even faulty, software, there were also great strides in desktop productivity.

      It's just simply business-- they focused their efforts on the PC and, because their timing was right, they succeeded in a humongous way. Were their tactics seedy? Sure; that's business for you. I wonder if, in the future, you will be writing the same stuff, but with Google's name in it, because they'll have secured their place in history as the frontrunners of capitalizing on Internet technologies?

      For instance, what about all of the time and money that is wasted by employees viewing videos on YouTube? That may not necessarily be the equivalent of faulty software; but those videos eat bandwidth and slow PC performance down. That forces corporate IT to make a decision as to whether or not they need to block YouTube on the firewall. If they do that, any legitimate business use of video on YouTube is no longer viable.
    31. Re:Microsofts heritage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty anti-Microsoft-skewed statement that is kind of ridiculous. The real story is that those Microsoft folks aggressively pursued the notion that they could build a successful business by focusing on PCs. For all of the "losses in both time and money" the can be attributed to imperfect, or even faulty, software, there were also great strides in desktop productivity.

      Actually there are a number of studies that indicate that these supposed productivity gains are illusory.

      Also, far from bringing us the 'paperless office,' laser printers have led to something like a fivefold increase in paper usage!

    32. Re:Microsofts heritage by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      For instance, what about all of the time and money that is wasted by employees viewing videos on YouTube? That may not necessarily be the equivalent of faulty software; but those videos eat bandwidth and slow PC performance down. That forces corporate IT to make a decision as to whether or not they need to block YouTube on the firewall. If they do that, any legitimate business use of video on YouTube is no longer viable.

      If a person chooses to view YouTube instead of doing some work, that's their choice. If there are bad consequences for that person, or time and money lost by his employer, well, the blame rests solely with that person. That's a big difference from software that just crashes without warning, causing some amount of work to be lost, and the time to recover the situation having to be spent. In that case the employee is blameless, but the loser is still him and/or his employer.

      Crashes may be relatively rare these days and that's to be welcomed, but there are still delays caused by software problems that really don't need to be there. More attention to quality and stability on the part of the software (and OS) vendors would help.

  13. sex change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I count 2 women in the before photo and 3 in the after photo?

    1. Re:sex change? by chiph · · Score: 1

      Go back and RTFA.

      Chip H.

    2. Re:sex change? by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


      | Present for the reunion was office manager Miriam Lubow (centre of
      | new picture), who missed the original sitting due to a snowstorm.
      | Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace (top center), who died in 2002;
      | after leaving Microsoft in 1983

    3. Re:sex change? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If you'd RTFA, you'd know that one of the guys in the first photo died, and one of women in the second photo had been supposed to be in the first photo but hadn't been able to attend the shoot.

    4. Re:sex change? by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
      Because there ARE THREE women in the later photo, and only TWO in the first!!!!eleventy

      goddamn n00bs.

  14. sex change? by johnrpenner · · Score: 0, Redundant


    how come i see THREE women in the later photo, but only TWO in the first!?!?

  15. Time travel by owlman17 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude, please send the second terminator. I am still typing this on Windows, so apparently, the mission failed.

    1. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're still using windows, so that means that the second mission failed. In fact, it would seem that the nth mission failed.

      Plenty of sequel potential.

    2. Re:Time travel by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      The terminator runs windows, that naturally have a failsafe to prevent that particular mission.

  16. THE GOGGLES by dwalsh · · Score: 3, Funny

    etc.

    --
    ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
  17. RTFA by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Yes... it is an old and basic skill but often useful.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  18. Gates on the desk by tobiasly · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were also gonna go back and recapture that famous 1983 photo of Gates laying across the desk all sultry-like, but he broke a hip trying to strike his pose...

    1. Re:Gates on the desk by MeepMeep · · Score: 1

      They were also gonna go back and recapture that famous 1983 photo of Gates laying across the desk all sultry-like, but he broke a hip trying to strike his pose...

      My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

    2. Re:Gates on the desk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is that a roll of Peppermints in your pocket, or you just happy to be photographed?"
    3. Re:Gates on the desk by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      So that's how Microsoft won the OS monopoly...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:Gates on the desk by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec.... is that a Mac to the right of his PC behind him in the second picture?

    5. Re:Gates on the desk by the0 · · Score: 0

      I love what looks like a BSOD on the computer screen behind him. Clearly, the BSOD has quite a (long) history! =)

    6. Re:Gates on the desk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Wait a sec.... is that a Mac to the right of his PC behind him in the second picture?

      Um... you do know that Microsoft was one of the first developers of Mac software, right?

      And that there was no Windows in 1983?

      Or did you think the Mac on the desk and the introduction of Windows two years later was just a coincidence? :)

    7. Re:Gates on the desk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHA! Holy crap, that is one of the funniest things ever. Thanks for sharing...

    8. Re:Gates on the desk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates in 1977
      Yet another classic

  19. How Come? by kurt555gs · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Every Slashdot post that is an obvious M$ fanboy rant includes, "I am by no means a fan of Microsoft"

    This is getting to be a clue, like "Think of the children".

    Google this code phrase and see, http://tinyurl.com/4wxy6y

    M$ fanboy code.

    Cheers

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:How Come? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Because I don't have Karma I will say +1 Informative.

    2. Re:How Come? by Woy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      THIS SHIT is exactly why i browse at flamebait +5. I do see a lot of shit, but i won't have you littledicks censor what i read.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    3. Re:How Come? by Woy · · Score: 1

      Ooh flame me too! The grandparent must have hit the motherload. Thanks for the confirmation, fanboys, i'll keep the matter up now.

      BTW metamods will clean your shit.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  20. Someone will come back from retirement? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    It looks like media, especially the ones known to be very close to MSFT started re-polishing BillG. This happens after someone took his job joked with companies prestige with 40+ billion dollars in hand.
    Lets watch... Especially check CNET News.com lately, you will figure what I mean.

  21. How many are still at MS? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Skimming the article, I noticed that a lot of the original cast quitted. Now, what could possibly make a "first day" employee quit at the biggest software company in the world? Usually, such people tend to be up in the lofty top floor offices with paychecks large enough to use as a convenient blanket at night.

    How the hell do working conditions have to be to quit that?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How many are still at MS? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      They didn't exactly "quit"; "cashed out" would be a more appropriate description. They were all early investors in Microsoft stock; basically every single person in that photo made a metric assload of money from the stock alone. None of them ever has to work for a living, ever again.

    2. Re:How many are still at MS? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your hindsight is better than their foresight?

      Perhaps they got to a point where they could retire and decided that they'd rather spend time on their boat than in an office?

      Perhaps they were using it as a stepping stone to do something else they'd rather do? How many people here would rather have a different occupation than whatever they have today but it's just not gainful enough for them to do it?

      One things for sure; none of these people truly had any idea how far things would go in the picture. And if I were a ground-floor member of a startup I'd get out as soon as I had an amount to retire comfortably. For as much as people around here view them as the strong-arm of the software industry I'm sure there were many points where things look a bit bleak for MS. They had no guarantees of the success that they have today.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:How many are still at MS? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When you have the monopoly over the OS on IBM's small computer line, it's maybe not a surefire success, but it's a good hint that it's probably more viable than the 900th dot.com startup...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. A photo worth thousand words by Ilgaz · · Score: 1
    1. Re:A photo worth thousand words by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't someone tell these people that if the media is coming over to wash your hair during your weekly bath? Seriously, it amazes me how greasy these people look. What greasy the in style in the 70s?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:A photo worth thousand words by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The Apple photo says "circa 1975". But, the style looks later and the keyboard case looks like an Apple II, which was at least 76 if not later.

    3. Re:A photo worth thousand words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple photo says "circa 1975". But, the style looks later and the keyboard case looks like an Apple II, which was at least 76 if not later.

      That's correct. Even if you can argue that 1976 is "circa 1975," Woz said they didn't start developing the Apple II until summer of '76.
      http://www.woz.org/letters/general/94.html

  23. Nice old photo there, but .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which one is bill gates?

    1. Re:Nice old photo there, but .. by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      Lower left corner.

  24. Plus free strings! by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Windows, for all it's warts, allowed almost everyone access to the world of computers."

    Plus free strings attached to it! viz.

    Your 'access to the world of computers' must be acknowledged as a service that you license from a vendor, rather than a skill that you acquire and use for your own purposes.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Plus free strings! by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your 'access to the world of computers' must be acknowledged as a service that you license from a vendor, rather than a skill that you acquire and use for your own purposes.

      What exactly are you trying to say.

      What skill do I require beyond turing on my computer, starting Firefox and browsing? Would compiling my own Kernel enhance my experience somehow?

  25. It so easy to think that by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    but back in those days they were who we are now. I am quite certain that at the time they were coming out with various versions of DOS and when Windows landed that they felt the same. They were up against the big hardware guys fighting for respect that they didn't have. It took them a long time to get there and in the process. In the long run they grew out of the need to go in a new direction as we are doing again. It is a never ending process and we should be glad for it. I am sure somewhere down the road, say twenty years or so, there will be people posting on boards dismissing Linux or OS X as being special just as some write off Windows.

    Take it in the context of its time. Yes there were other platforms I would have liked to see succeed but they didn't have the drive needed. Just like today there are some ideas out there I would think should be better positioned but they lack the support of the community. Just as many here have grabbed onto Linux there are still those who prefer another way and they pursue it. Are they wrong? I am certain that back then Amiga and Atari people didn't think they were but they failed to form a large enough presence and community at the time to stay. With the internet it should be much easier for good systems to come along and get their day in the sun but at the same time it is also like a choir where you try to pick out that one voice but can't.

    I grew up in those days and remember thinking how cool it was. I played with desqtop (sp?) and other windowing platforms. Yet I also remember how we were still pulling away from IBM PC brands at that time too, I remember stores filled with PS/2s and if anything Windows and various versions of DOS got us out of the control of platform vendors. It certainly helped to bring costs down to where most people could participate and perhaps that alone leads to where we are today?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  26. Wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There were only 2 women in the 70's picture. Did one of them get a sex change?

    1. Re:Wait a second by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There were only 2 women in the 70's picture. Did one of them get a sex change?

      Gee, people blame everything on Vista. (However, I suppose if it was on a laptop actually being used in one's lap and it ran hot due to Vista's resource requirements...)
           

  27. whoa. too bad Rob Reiner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didn't work for MS back then. He would've fit right in.

  28. Never forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...that for the better part of 2 decades you cannot walk into a retail store to get a Window-less PC
    ...that MS choked the life out of Netscape, even when IE was free on every desktop
    ...that their embrace and extend diluted the OLPC's goals (to me this makes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation a mere cover not unlike crocodile tears)
    ...that a generation of users think CTL-ALT-DEL can reset everything from PCs to other appliances
    ...that yes, some of the more promising startup technologies that reflected true innovation were bought up by MS only to be downgraded to research papers and never to see the light of day
    ...that the OS has provided a fertile breeding ground for botnets, spyware, and viruses. Ask your sysadmin if you need help remembering this.

    You might push the myth that they were responsible for putting a computer in a lot of households. Was there any other choice? They didn't need to strong arm or blackmail the dealers to sell HW with windows on it, if the product can stand on its merits. They killed Netscape because they feared it would have made the OS irrelevant. If you asked me, Where do you want to go today, we should have been there already.

  29. Rectification: I do by smartdreamer · · Score: 1

    I do doubt.

    I really do. Okay, it accelerated the whole thing, but Gates is far from a genious. Most of his successes comes on the business front. He was there at the right time and did the right thing to grow his company. Thanks to the competition that was either too creative or conservative. Anyway, I don't think of Gates as a visionary guy in the sense of great achiever. What did he do? What did Microsoft invented that was truely novel, that nobody ever thought of? Nothing comes to mind: not the PC, not the OS, not the GUI, not the networking capability, not the office suite, not the development tools, not the language, not the media player, not interactive media language. You name it. Microsoft only bought, copied, stole, or adapt something already there.

    He is a good business man in respect to capitalism pratices and monopoly and that is it.
  30. Just hope they don't reshoot the hot tub photo by gregux · · Score: 1

    OK, I have only a vague recollection of this one, so I hope there's somebody else out there who remembers it too. Didn't find a link for it, unfortunately.

    It was a magazine ad. I think there were three people in the photo - at least one was a woman - and they were sitting and drinking in the hot tub, only visible from the shoulders up. I think they were company employees, but could have been hired models. Might have been from as far back as the pre-DOS days.

    I do remember a hot-looking woman in the photo. But that was a _long_ time ago.

    --
    The three most important words in a relationship are "I love you." The two most important are "Humor me."
    1. Re:Just hope they don't reshoot the hot tub photo by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I think you're thinking of Softporn Adventure, the precursor to Leisure Suit Larry.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  31. Linux desktop .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Where on the high street can someone walk in and buy a Linux desktop. What's preventing the OEMs doing that. A retorical question that we all know the answer to .. :)

    Linux is being used in consumer items, it's just that it isn't visible. The PC industry is effectily a Microsoft run monopoly. The hardware manufacturers would be better expanding into the embedded market. That's if Sir William will even let them .. :)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  32. 8088 far cheaper than 6809? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    First, an 8088 based machine was far cheaper than 6800 series based machine
    I bought a trash 80 color (6809) in 1980 for about $500, it was the cheapest machine on the market. The other trash 80's and the Apple were double that, although they came with a monitor. They used the Z80 and the 6502. The Atari also used the 6502 (If I remember correctly), but I don't remember if it just played games or if you could program that one.When the PC's came out with 8088, they were priced around $1000, not $500.

    So I don't understand why you say that 8088 based machines were far cheaper than 6800 series machines. Based on what I remember about prices back then, the CPU didn't seem to be the biggest factor.
    1. Re:8088 far cheaper than 6809? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So I don't understand why you say that 8088 based machines were far cheaper than 6800 series machines.

      Because you are comparing, to some extent, apples and oranges - the $500 dollar machines didn't come with a monitor.
       
       

      So I don't understand why you say that 8088 based machines were far cheaper than 6800 series machines. Based on what I remember about prices back then, the CPU didn't seem to be the biggest factor.

      It's not just the direct cost of the CPU, it's the cost of the whole chipset, the design of the motherboard, the overall system performance etc... etc... When you compare an equivalently performing 6xxx chip to a 8088 chip, the 6xxx based system is more expensive. Thus IBM went with the 8088.
  33. Bill Gates "Vision" by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody doubts Bill Gates' vision helped bring computers to the masses a great deal... If Bill Gates had been the only one trying or had an insightful viewpoint I might agree with you. He was merely the most successful financially, NOT in my opinion the most visionary or even particularly helpful most of the time. Compaq cloning the original PC BIOS had a lot more to do with bringing computers to the masses than Microsoft. Mitch Kapor and Lotus 1-2-3 was the killer app that really got the PC off the ground. Microsoft was merely one of many companies involved with making the IBM compatible PC the most dominant platform. Bill Gates is to my mind the poster child for the value of network effects.

    Bill Gates vision? You mean his business model? Nothing visionary or new there. He was selling an operating system product that was included with each PC so OF COURSE he wanted "a computer on every desk". So would you if you were selling a product with zero marginal cost. He just was lucky enough to get on the right horse with one of the two most important products on the PC (along with Intel's CPUs). It wasn't an especially good product even by the standards of the day. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else - have no doubt of that. Microsoft wasn't even in the operating system business relatively late in the game but it turned out to be a cash cow that put them where they are today.

    Vision? No I'm not convinced Bill Gates' "vision" helped accelerate adoption of PCs. You can make a reasonable (though hypothetical) argument that his company's crappy technology and operating system monopoly held adoption of computers by the masses back by several years. Don't get me wrong, there are many things he deserves credit for - both good and bad - but his vision isn't among them.

  34. OT by Miseph · · Score: 1

    "If you learn of an Apple-Google-Nintendo merger, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and are already dead!"

    I'd be very troubled dead or otherwise. I like two of those companies and strongly dislike the third, so I'd be rather pissed.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  35. Older, yes, better, no. by mbone · · Score: 1

    They look older, yes, better, IMHO, no.

  36. Thank you, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like to think I'm not average... :-)

    And... regardless of how average I am or not, Linux once made a poor unemployed guy able to use his very old PC without breaking his principles about not using things without a license (what is nowadays called "piracy"). I'm grateful for this.

    FIY, Windows is doing IMHO a fantastic job of getting the PC out of the lives of average people.

    Real dialogue at an elctronics shop:

    Buyer: "I do have Office XP. Can I use with this Vista PC"?

    Salesman: "No"

    (I googled it, turns out some people manage to do it, while others can't).

  37. Used UNIX and Win3.1 on the desktop in '93 by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Sure, UNIX was on a SPARCstation, but then I tried Linux...solely to see if I could use a PC as an X-terminal off a UNIX system. It worked so well I began to wonder what Microsoft was missing.

    Linux ran way faster on my 486-33 than Win3.1 did, and, more importantly, it didn't crash like Windows did when QEMM got confused.

    Windows always seems to be playing catch-up. Apple got smart and built on the BSD foundation.

  38. The 70's called they want their CP/M back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but before Microsoft came along there was a healthy ecosystem called CP/M, a *family* of operating systems designed for microcomputers, each slightly incompatible with the others. If Microsoft had *not* come along, then the CP/M family would have evolved for the microcomputers the same way that the BSD and Linux distros did -- each distro does things its own way that respects the network and data formats used so that passing data around is trivial. So, no, we *don't* know how things would have evolved without Microsoft.

    We just know:
    a) CP/M was a community affair -- poeple shared software in this community not unlike the open source community.
    b) Microsoft has *evil* practices of screwing the customers out of choice by doing an end around with hardware OEMs.
    c) The BSD and Linux folks have community practices of share and share alike.

    1. Re:The 70's called they want their CP/M back by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but before Microsoft came along there was a healthy ecosystem called CP/M, a *family* of operating systems designed for microcomputers, each slightly incompatible with the others.

      As a former CP/M user and as someone who worked through college in the 80s selling computers, I can not recall CP/M ever really being "healthy". It was there, but not exactly healthy.

      Here was the breakdown at the shop that I worked at circa 1984:

      DOS Compatibles: Compaq, Eagle, Bear, Sanyo, etc. (man the clone market was on fire back then. We even made grey boxes).

      CP/M machines: Kaypro, and Osborne. The Kaypros were actually well made. I like the Kaypro's much larger screen, while the Osborne was a sewing machine with a small screen. The main selling point of the Osborne was the software that came with it.

      Home computers: Commodore 64, 128, and Amiga. Atari 800 and ST.

      Granted this is just my observation at the store I worked for, but here it goes:

      The bulk of our sales were Commodore 64s, followed by the PC clones (Mostly Compaq and for some strange reason Sanyo). Atari 800 sales were OK. Amigas outsold STs. CP/M sales were much lower.

      A competitor of ours was an authorized Apple dealer, and he couldn't keep the Apple IIs in stock.

      Anyway, what killed CP/M was the following:

      Clones - Who could compete with a onslaught of computer clones whose definition of PC compatible was the ability to run MS-DOS?

      Price - The clones were cheaper, and easier to get.

      Bad business practices - Kaypro and Osborne manufactures couldn't move product, and mismanaged the introduction of newer models. Ultimately finding themselves out of business. (Radio Shack (aka Tandy) had similar mishandling issues).

      Features - MS-DOS was faster and had better file management than CP/M at the time.

      Microsoft was NOT a monopoly in the 80's...

      I'm sure there was something else, but this is all I can remember at the moment...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  39. Jesus fucking christ! by kaiwai · · Score: 1

    Microsoft did no such thing; I can't believe on a tech site like this, filled with nerds and geeks, that someone would fall into the kool aide consuming lie that is "Microsoft created the PC revolution". If Microsoft wasn't around, it could have been amstrad, acorn, amiga, atari etc. etc. Microsoft was simply at the right place at the right time with the right product for the market - and found a big name to tag along with. That is the reality, not this retelling of history I see you conduct.

  40. WTF! by KingBozo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I don't get it here are only 2 girls in the 70's photo and 3 in the recent photo.

    Which one had a sex change?

    1. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA; one male has died and another woman that was to be in the original photo but couldn't make it due to a snowstorm was included.

  41. I still say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    goatse is more pleasant to look at

  42. Re:2 women in the original photo .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but apparently you missed reading the article and the comments from the 35 other people just like you who have already asked that question.

  43. It tolls for you! by freenix · · Score: 0

    Ask not, and please tell not.

  44. Sooo.... by vegiVamp · · Score: 0

    FTA> Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace (top center), who died in 2002; after leaving Microsoft in 1983, he pioneered the idea of shareware.

    The one guy who left them to do something that actually allows people some choice, dies.

    I smell a conspiracy :-)

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  45. Where is by thexile · · Score: 1

    Ballmer???

  46. is that true ? by vicong · · Score: 1

    That Tron http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/sakamura.html get sabotaged by Microsoft (with US government help), so tron can't enter PC OS market ?

    --
    Hey! I came here to be drugged, electrocuted and probed, NOT to be insulted! -- Homer Simpsons
  47. Picture Quality by downix · · Score: 1

    The first one was shot on a medium format camera, the second on a digital SLR. It's sad how in 30 years, the image quality of the photos has degraded so much. Altho the outfits have improved, so a fair tradeoff.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  48. OH! I thought... by Illbay · · Score: 1
    ...someone had gotten a sex change:


    Present for the reunion was office manager Miriam Lubow ...Absent for the reshoot was Bob Wallace...

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  49. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Us dorks have come a long way in the looks department over the course of 30 years. Who says evolution is just a theory.

  50. Re:Thank you (typo) by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    The myth should have read:

    "If it wasn't for Windows, the average person would *not* have a PC"

    I do find the omission funnier...

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  51. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion