Windows 8 ****

[Moltuae]

Right. And I'm asking, if MS is so terrible, why is that? It's not like they've never had competition, it's not like they are the cheapest, they weren't even the first.

So, how did they become so dominant?

Rick

I think the answer depends on your perspective.

Personally, I don't think they succeeded by being the best, rather they just weren't quite as bad as the competition.

 

[joydivision]

It all started with the 8-bit microcomputers. Alen and Gates developed a BASIC interpreter in 1976 for a kit computer (the Altair 8800 I think). At the time it was the only BASIC langauge for that computer and that computer was a success. By now MS had quite a bit money and they went onto supply the BASIC for Commodore, Acorn, Atari and others. They then went onto buy a DOS operating system for the emerging Intel X86 platform they rebranded this MS-DOS.

MS-DOS by now already well known made a deal with IBM to sell MS DOS for the new IBM PC, it was a massive success and by 1985 MS-DOS was the one of the biggest operating systems. There was competition in the form of CP/M but MS-DOS was a lot more powerful.

By the time Windows started to become popular circa 1990 it became the default windows OS as it was comptable with MS-DOS. The jointly developed OS/2 (IBM and MS) was supposed to replace MS-DOS but due to a falling out with MS it never really happened.

The simple reason for Microsoft's dominance is that people want compatibility . You will notice that MS has struggled with any operating system it has released that didn't offer x86 compatibility e.g Windows mobile.

I am waffling on a lot now, but the simple fact is if you had a Commodore C64 you were using a Microsoft product, they were first to dominate the market and as a result had that luxury ever since and only now is it fading.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Right. And I'm asking, if MS is so terrible, why is that? It's not like they've never had competition, it's not like they are the cheapest, they weren't even the first.

So, how did they become so dominant?

Rick

Buy striking exclusive deals with PC makers to ship the only OS that existed at the time for PC Clone makers and taking shameless advantage of IBM, twice. In the beginning the only two companies making the PC were IBM and a little company in Houston called Compaq. IBM failed to get exclusive rights to PC-DOS and thus allowed Microsoft to make MS-DOS. Building on that base they used the same tactics to market Windows. When every PC made is shipped with your OS it is hard for any competitor to gain a foothold. And it also doesn't help when even your competition has it's roots in Microsoft. OS/2 was a joint effort by Microsoft and IBM to build the next version of Windows. They had a falling out and parted ways. IBM long accused Microsoft of stealing code from them and the simple fact is that IBM entered into a bad business arrangement that was fully at Microsoft's advantage. So they could take code from IBM and built the NT platform with it. And you can't really cry for IBM because they were stupid both times. Microsoft is known for stealing ideas and playing hardball to press their advantage. It is has never been about designing a good product only about making a product that they can leverage into their monopoly.

 

[Cornerstone Technologies]

Allan and Gates developed a BASIC interpreter in 1976 for a kit computer (the Altair 8800 I think)

I think you and I watched the same movie.

 

[johnrobert]

Altair 8800 had no keyboard just buttons to press that lit up a few lights strictly for the hobbyist
No mean of saving anything when turned off all your programing was lost

 

[Markverhyden]

The way I see it business decisions made by Apple and IBM are the reason why M$ is dominant. Back in the day there were many manufacturers out there making hardware. Obviously IBM saw the potential of the PC concept so they came out with the PC in answer to all of the other options such as Commodore, Tandy, Apple, etc, that were slowly gaining ground in the business world. Of course the hardware cost much more than the software back in those days.

Obviously imitation is the greatest form of flattery so it's no surprise that companies tried to clone the popular brands. Apple was certainly one of them. I remember back in the late '80's they were going after everybody that even hinted of making a machine to run their GUI OS. And they still do. To do that you have to be able to clone the motherboard, especially the BIOS. On the other hand IBM chose not to sue anybody for cloning. While they knew the PC market had growth potential they were confident that it would never approach the main frame/mid size market. They were more worried about companies like DEC. LOL!!! On top of that they did not have M$ on an exclusive agreement. The net result is that M$ could sell to all PC clone manufacturers. And their product price points were way below that of Apple as well as IBM. Of course the software developers followed suit, writing programs for the growing part of the market.

 

[16k_zx81]

Since when has Windows ever been good? Microsoft has never had to make a good OS to be dominate. End user satisfaction has never been the goal of Microsoft because they are not the buyers of the software. Attempting to address that is one of the reasons Windows 8 is so hated. They ignored the OEMs and major Corporate buyers in attempt to get into the consumer market.

XP and 7. Both great OSs for end-users. Widely regarded as having high-useabilty.

Vista, actually it wasnt 'interface issues' that caused it to be rejected. It was the fact that it was released in an unstable state and it took MS too long to patch it up to a workable standard. That, and the fact that they understated the hardware requirememtns and too many OEM's released machines with insufficient memory to run it - so it got the reputation of being 'slow'. The actual interface, though, provided the building blocks of what made 7 so successful.

So actually, yes, MS does have a history of making good, usable *interfaces*.

This is my point. With all of the resources at their disposal, and all of the experience and expertise there, HTF did they manage to get the equation so woefully, thoroughly *wrong* in the latest incarnation?

All of the "operating system" hassles of 8 aside, the main criticism levelled at it is its massive useability fail.

Makes no sense.

 

[Markverhyden]

So actually, yes, MS does have a history of making good, usable *interfaces*.

This is my point. With all of the resources at their disposal, and all of the experience and expertise there, HTF did they manage to get the equation so woefully, thoroughly *wrong* in the latest incarnation?

All of the "operating system" hassles of 8 aside, the main criticism levelled at it is its massive useability fail.

Makes no sense.

It does make sense when put into the context of them being a monopoly for all intents and purposes. I used to work for a company that was a monopoly in their sector of industry.

What happens is management gets delusions of grandeur after years of phenomenal profits. Profits which do not necessarily mean that management did spectacular things but rather they failed to massively screw up. Sure, some of them may be great managers, etc. But they are great at managing in a non-competitive environment.