Post by Tim SmithPost by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.comThe idea that Microsoft is responsible for the rapid adoption of
personal computers is just plain silly.
Actually, not as silly as you might think. Bill and Steve Jobs were
major pioneers in making PCs affordable, easy to use, and useful.
Bill wanted to get into the PC market, and saw the MITS Altair as his
ticket in. He had worked for a time-share company in high school, and
managed to get his hands on DEC BASIC (binary or source?) by
convincing the company to sell backup tapes to his computer club. He
knew which tapes had the BASIC on it, and pulled it aside for
himself. Many years later, Bill admitted that he did this, and cut a
settlement deal to make restitution to DEC.
The ALTAIR was programmed using a bank of switches to load address and
data, which was used to load a paper tape loader program, which then
let you load the application. Eventually, you could interface to the
computer with a teletype device. Ugly, but it worked.
Steve Wozniak figured out how to combine a graphics display with a
6502 processor, and a keyboard. They had to show it to HP, and
fortunately for Jobs and Wozniak, HP was not interested at the time.
Steve Jobs went to dozens of banks to get funding to build more
computers. Eventually, a venture capitalist backed him, and the Apple
was moved from a wooden case to a plastic case, and the 7 inch monitor
was replaced with a 14 inch monitor, or an RF modulator like those
used for game machines.
But Bill Gates soon became the "go to" person for companies who wanted
BASIC for their computers. He ported BASIC to the Comodore PET, then
the TRS-80, and THEN he approached IBM. When Gary Kildal refused to
sign a nondisclosure agreement that he had been told by his lawyer
would give IBM the rights to CP/M (which was already the leading OS in
business desktop computers of numerous types), Bill Gates told them he
had an operating system, and could make it enough like CP/M to satisfy
most customers.
Keep in mind that Microsoft did have an Operating System, but it was
Xenix, and it ran on the 68000 processor, not the 8086. Gates had
bluffed IBM into buying an operating system from Microsoft that
Microsoft didn't even own yet. It wasn't the first time Microsoft had
engaged in a fraudulent contract, and it wouldn't be the last.
Instead of giving IBM an 8086 version of Xenix, Gates had Paul Allen
buy a CP/M work-alike called Q-DOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System),
from Seattle Computer Company. The irony is that the source code for
Q-DOS had been published in a ham radio magazine or an early hobbiest
computer magazine (I think it was 73) about 2 years earlier, but
Microsoft wanted exclusive rights. Seattle Computer didn't make any
money with QDOS and had lots of debts. Allen offered $150,000 for
exclusive rights, and the offer was eagerly accepted. Many years
later, Microsoft paid the owners of SCC substantially more to make
restitution.
Post by Tim SmithPost by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.comBill Gates was very
smart in recognizing the opportunity presented with the emerging
PC market and very shrewed in the deals he cut with IBM and other
vendors
Shrewd is one word for it. Many of his dealings, even in the earliest
days bordered on the verge of fraud, extortion, and blackmail. Much
of this may have been because there were two Bill Gates' involved.
One was the 22 year old nerd with the squeaky voice and birth control
glasses (Trey), but the other was a brilliant corporate lawyer, with a
reputation for writing one-sided contracts that were loaded with
loopholes to make it look like a fair deal, and a pechant for voiding
the contracts the minute a perceived violation had been detected
(Deuce).
If these companies had been sitting across from Deuce, they would have
been much more cautious, they would have been wary of the deal, and
they would have had their lawyers going over it with a fine-tooth
comb. Instead, facing Trey, they thought they were in the stronger
position, and in many cases, appeared to be beating Trey into total
submission when he introduced a few minor changes in exchange for his
concessions (written by Deuce, along with innocent scenarios that made
the new provisions seem reasonable). Deuce also had a deep
understanding of a brand new change in copyright law (did he have a
role in drafting it?). He had a profound understanding of the power
of the copyright license.
Perhaps Deuce didn't even tell Trey what the new clauses were really
for. This would have prevented psychics and telepaths from detecting
the scam.
And Deuce was smart. Instead of forming the company with himself as
President, he gave that role Trey, and took the role of corporate
council. This let them avoid inheritance taxes, income tax issues,
and eliminated or reduced non-compete issues.
Trey's mom was no slouch either. She was very active in charity work,
which had her rubbing shoulders with corporate leaders, investment
bankers, and politicians. She was very helpful in making sure that
the microcomputer was kept unregulated, while Microsoft continued to
thrive in her husband's brilliant knowledge of copyright law, and he
son's disarming "face". I'm not sure that even they realized that
their son would eventually become the richest man on earth.
Bill's dad (Deuce) also understood corporate law very well. When
Microsoft incorporated and went public, they made sure that Bill,
Paul, and Steve retained controlling interest in the company. It
would be impossible for investment bankers to force any kind of take-
over or management change.
Post by Tim SmithPost by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.comto make sure MS was the one riding the coattails of the
PC market expansion... but face it, if MS had not been the vendor
supplying the software, some other company would have stepped
into the gap. The software we use today would look a bit
Remember, Microsoft wasn't the first choice. IBM had approach DRI
first. They probably talked to some other companies as well. The
problem for IBM is that CP/M and MP/M were cutting into their
markets. They had already pretty much killed the market for the
Series 1, and was a direct threat to System 360 (IBM later offered 360
in a PC hardware framework).
Post by Tim SmithIt's interesting to speculate what might have been had MS not supplied
the OS.
IBM was very wary of AT&T. They liked UNIX, but they didn't want to
deal with them directly. Perhaps one of the attractions of Microsoft
is that they had permission to distribute Xenix, and to sell it to
IBM.
Post by Tim SmithRemember, Bill Gates thought that the road to success was as an
application and development tools vendor.
Only initially. There was a point, perhaps during his work with the
TRS-80, that he decided that he wanted to make sure that Microsoft was
"Indespensible". Microsoft had several competitors in the BASIC
market, and most vendors charged much less (retail) than Microsoft
did. But Microsoft had figured out that he could make a computer
maker purchase enough licenses for all of the computers he hoped to
sell, if they though Microsoft would team up with a competitor and do
something better.
What Gates did was play the manufacturers against each other. He told
MITS that unless they paid him $150,000 for 3,000 licenses for
Microsoft Basic, he would port it to the SWTP 6800 machine, which, at
the time, was MITS most successful competitor. MITS took the deal,
but made Microsoft promise not to port BASIC to any 6800 processor,
they probably demanded a complete non-compete, but Microsoft conceded
to it only when the scope was limited to the 6800, but they
appearently offered to sweeten the deal by giving them BASIC in ROM.
A few months later, Bill published a long article in an electronics
magazine explaining why it was impossible to put BASIC in ROM for the
MITS because of it's S-100 bus and all of the options. Just weeks
later, Commodore announced the PET, with Microsoft BASIC in ROM.
Since the PET used the 6502 processor, Microsoft hadn't violated their
contract with MITS, but MITS was out of business.
There's some interesting reading in "Windows NT - The Next Generation"
by Len Feldman, published by Sams books - copyright 1993. Also, the
movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley", was scripted from actual public
quotes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, and Steve
Wozniac (along with many others). By making it part of day to day
personal dialog, the movie became more intimate and dramatic.
Also, look at
http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm
Microsoft played Commodore against MITS, then played Tandy against
Commodore, and then played IBM against Tandy. But when Gates landed
IBM, he obtained the right to sell the new OS to other vendors.
Instead of charging IBM a huge flat rate and giving them the software,
Microsoft created the software and then licensed it to IBM, in
exchange for a minimum commitment. It was a trick Microsoft learned
back in their days with MITS.
Post by Tim SmithHis prediction was that the
personal computer world would have many different successful,
incompatible, architectures, all sharing the market. Intel, Zilog,
National Semiconductor, Motorola--they all had 16-bit and 32-bit chips
upcoming.
Which was why Microsoft feared UNIX so completely. When Berkely came
out with BSD Unix, and AT&T started licensing Version 7 UNIX
commercially, they were available in source code format. It wasn't
cheap, it was nearly $45,000 for the tapes containing all of the
source code and documentation, but all you had to do to port UNIX to a
new platform was write the C compiler and/or the assembler that could
convert metacode into machine code.
Several companies had created UNIX based on Version 6 UNIX, including
Microsoft. But Version 6 had some severe limitations. It relied on
segmented memory. Scheduling was complex, and interprocess
communications was limited to pipes between parents and children. BSD
introduced mechanisms to communicate between processes using servers.
It was an early form of what we now call sockets, but it did work. In
effect, it was a "ram disk" pipe.
BSD 4.0 and later introduced sockets, named pipes, and shared memory.
This allowed the creation of creation of servers to coordinate
resources.
Microsoft had gone the other direction. They wanted to make all
computers identical. They had become a critical element of IBM's PC,
and they had permission to license MS-DOS to anybody they wanted. IBM
was OK with it too, because they were willing to license hardware,
BIOS, and other things they controlled to Microsoft's other customers
as well. Ironically, IBM may have made more money on the $3-4
licenses than they made on the computers themselves. IBM only
produced about 250,000 computers their first year. Microsoft's
licenses to Compaq, NEC, and all of those other computer makers, made
it possible to produce and market over 1 million computers over the
next year. It fueled more demand for PCs, and IBM was able to ramp up
it's own production.
Post by Tim SmithGates' vision was that Microsoft would do its applications for them all,
and its tools for them all. And to make that easier on Microsoft, there
should be one OS that would run on them all.
Gates, Jobs, and IBM all understood the importance of information.
IBM had been controlling a huge amount of information, through it's
mainframes. Every credit card transaction, every check, every
telephone call, every tax deduction, all were recorded in the form of
transaction records on IBM computers in companies all over the world.
IBM considered itself a trustee of that information, and screened it's
people very carefully. They had the demeanor of accountants, because
the majority of the information they stored, was accounting
information, tax information, and customer information used for
mailings, telephone solicitations, and marketing campaigns.
Steve Jobs understood the impact of controlling all of this
information. He understood that if people had personal computers,
they would put even more information on their computers. His vision
was to keep as much of this information as possible personal, private,
and to disclose only the portion that was actually needed for
compliance with tax laws and other regulatory agencies.
Bill Gates had a twisted vision which combined both worlds. He also
saw the power of all that information, and what would happen if people
put even more information into their PCs, and if all that information
could be accessed and controlled by Microsoft.
Even as early as late 1983, Bill Gates had a vision of World
Domination. In an interview with Byte (I think), he outlined every
step of the plan. He would make Microsoft's operating system the only
one used an anybody's personal computer. Then Microsoft would make
sure that all of the applications were Microsoft's. Then Microsoft
would get all of the computers networked together, so that they could
exchange documents, conduct financial transactions, and even personal
correspondence, and they would do it through a network controlled by
Microsoft.
Microsoft could use this information to help pick leaders who would
act in the best interests of Microsoft, and eventually, by controlling
the flow of information, to the press, to government agencies, to
military, Microsoft would be able to pick leaders for every country in
the world, achieve world peace, and world domination. Simply put, it
wasn't even 1984 yet, and Bill Gates was declaring that he would
become George Orwell's "Big Brother".
At the time, Microsoft had just outgrown Lotus as the world's largest
software company, which wasn't saying much. The software industry
wasn't that big. There were lots of little companies, and the big
computer companies put the systems together as a package, so there was
no way to measure software revenue distinct from hardware.
Microsoft's revenues were only about $50 million, for the year. It
was very hard to take this young nerd with the squeaking voice and a
$50 million/year company seriously as a global dictator.
However, in 1983, ARPA had a proof of concept for TCP/IP, called the
Dahlgren project. The Unix administrators had formed a UUCP network
that was passing messages all over the country in just a few hours.
Everything Bill Gates promised in his article had already been done,
on UNIX.
Perhaps this is why, when Richard Stallman asked for help protecting
his code from vendors who would try to steal it and turn it into
proprietary software, there were so many people in the net.legal group
who were willing to help formulate the GPL. Perhaps this is why, when
the GPL was finally drafted, so many people contributed their software
and published it under the GPL. UNIX applications were usually
published in source code format, because they had to be ported to so
many different platforms, and having them protected by the GPL helped
to protect them from predatory companies who would steal the code,
release only the binary, and put everything under strict nondisclosure
agreements, the way AT&T had tried to do with System V with BSD code.
Post by Tim SmithAnd that OS was Unix.
That's why they were one of the earliest promotors of Unix on
microprocessors, in the form of Xenix.
Remember, AT&T could not sell, distribute, or even market UNIX. They
had a monopoly on the telephone system, and Judge Green had barred
them from going into computers. AT&T accepted divestature because
they knew that competition was inevitable, and they hoped that getting
into the IT business would open up their market. But in 1976, prior
to the implementation of copyright laws that provided for licenses,
AT&T sent copies of Version 6 UNIX to dozens of Universities, telling
them to use it as a learning tool, and see what they could do.
Post by Tim SmithWhen IBM asked Microsoft to supply the OS for the PC, MS didn't want to.
They sent IBM to DR. When that didn't work out, MS still didn't want to.
There are probably a dozen different versions of the story. Ballmer
said that IBM just wanted BASIC. IBM said that they approached DRI
first, but Kildall wouldn't sign a nondisclosure agreement, and didn't
make an acceptable counter-offer. According to Ballmer, it was Gates
who told IBM they already had an operating system, and that they could
tailor it to the PC. It's best dramatized in the movie "Pirates of
Silicon Valley".
Even Microsoft's different "official" versions of the story are varied
and conflicting. Most of the IBM staff involved have retired. Paul
Allen resigned from Microsoft shortly after Bill's "World Domination"
interview, and often backed Microsoft's competitors. I suppose one
could go to a library and dig up the ancient archives of Byte, PC-
Week, 73 magazine, and other ancient archives, and maybe they could
come up with their own version of "Pirates of Silicon Valley".
Unfortunately, the Usnet postings were rarely archived. Most usenet
nodes were colleges, and they didn't have the budget to spend $200 per
day on tapes of usenet news posts. Corporations archived some
administrative groups, and some of those groups have cross-postings to
other groups, but many of the discussion groups were purged without
being backed up.
Post by Tim SmithIt was only after they were unofficially told that if MS didn't add
supplying the OS to their software proposal, IBM would probably cancel
the project, that MS agreed to come up with an OS somehow.
Which version did that come from? Most of the details of these
meetings were not recorded, but I don't recall hearing this version
before. Of course, after 25 years, nobody has a really good memory of
the details.
Post by Tim SmithIf only they had held out a little longer, and stuck to Gates' vision,
I don't think Gates ever planned to give Xenix to IBM, and even if
they did, it's possible that IBM didn't want it. Remember, a smart PC
was too dangerous to IBM. CP/M had already killed the Series 1 market
even before it got started. IBM may have feared that UNIX would kill
MVS if given a chance. Ironically, 18 years later, UNIX (Linux)
actually CREATED a new market for IBM mainframes, and most of their
hardware revenue would come from UNIX and it's variants (AIX and
Linux).
Post by Tim SmithIBM might have cancelled the PC,
IBM couldn't cancel the PC. They wanted the PC to be more of a "smart
terminal". Originally, the first PCs didn't even come with Floppies
as standard equipment. Even the hardware was based on a 3270
terminal. Even the PCs that did have a floppy only had a 360 kb
drive, and 64 kilobytes of RAM.
Letting competitors control the PC would have meant the possibility of
computers that could blow IBM's big iron out of the water. If UNIX
had shown up on PC hardware, in 1983, and had flourished for 4-5
years, IBM wouldn't have had the time to adapt to the new market. IBM
did license UNIX for AIX, and eventually became a major contributor to
Open Source projects such as Project Athena, but they wanted to make
sure that they could integrate IBM servers and IBM Mainframes with IBM
workstations the same way that they had integrated IBM terminals, IBM
terminal group controllers, and IBM Mainframes. If some of those
computers were competitors servers, that wasn't so bad, but at least
IBM would be in the game.
UNIX made the entire industry Schizophrenic. On one side, the legacy
hardware provided short term profits, and loyal customers were willing
to pay premium prices. On the other side, UNIX made it possible to
open new markets, create whole new forms of applications, and
integrate to competitor's systems as well as IBMs.
The problem was that the incentives at IBM, DEC, and even HP, were
contradictory. These companies wanted the new business, but the
commission structures made sales reps do everything they could to push
the proprietary products, even when it alienated the customers.
It was only when Lou Gerstner took control of the company and told his
sales people to "shut up and listen", and eventually turned about 70%
of the staff into consultants, focused on solving customer's problems,
instead of trying to sell them systems they didn't want, to solve
problems they didn't have, just to get a commission on a deal the
custotmer didn't want or need.
Sadly, it's now Microsoft who has lost touch with their customers. It
is Microsoft who is trying to force customers to buy upgrades they
don't want or need, to get new features they don't even want, and for
no other purpose than to maintain Microsoft revenue and profit levels.
Post by Tim Smithand Unix would be the dominant desktop
Ultimately *nix, whether UNIX or Linux, will be the dominant desktop.
It's as inevitable as the way UNIX displaced VMS, Sperry, Harris, and
other proprietary operating systems on minicomputers, servers, and
even supercomputers and supercomputer grids.
Post by Tim SmithOS, on a dozen different processor architectures,
Probably not so much. In much the same way that AMD and Intel have
tried to maintain instruction set compatibility even as they have
scaled up their architectures, I think the industry would have
narrowed down to 3-4 processor types, and common hardware and software
standards.
Post by Tim Smithwith full commercial software support.
And that's the real clincher isn't it? The value of software isn't
the copyright, or even the code, or even the binaries, it's the
support. There are lots of software applications, perhaps hundreds of
thousands, but the ones that survive, that thrive, that generate
$millions, or $billions, are the ones that are well supported.
Microsoft Windows 3.1 gained popularity, not because it was the best
technology, but because Microsoft took all the service calls for
Windows 3.0, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, and took the solutions to
hundreds of thousands of frequent questions, and coded them into
context sensitive help, wizards, and even dancing paper clips.
Windows 95 and Windows 98 were popular because Microsoft took ALL of
the devices and had them provide vendor and device codes so that the
operating system could figure out what drivers to use, what settings
to use, and what configurations to use, without having to set jumpers,
dip switches, and cables, without having to manually install drivers
in just the right order, figure out which interrupts conflict with
each other, try to figure it out. Microsoft wasn't the first, (Linux
did it first), but Microsoft had the muscle to disable the Linux Plug-
and-Play while creating a Plug-n-Play system that only Microsoft could
decode completely.
Windows XP was popular, because Microsoft updated it automatically.
No more waiting months or years for a major release. Most of the
updates were called security updates but most were bug fixes and new
enhancements.
But alas, Windows NT 3.x, Windows ME, and Windows Vista have been more
of the "buy this upgrade because we need the money". Sure there is
some cute eye candy, but it doesn't really solve problems.
And Vista has to compete with Linux, which has been focused on
solutions to business problems, and for this reason, Linux and Unix
should soon take their place as the dominant operating systems, with
or without Microsoft's help.
Rex Ballard