Posted on 06/24/2019 8:25:37 AM PDT by dayglored
Good point. In post #20, I mentioned the opposition to Windows entering the phone market. They backstabbed and kneecapped so many developers on the desktop that nobody trusted them. Every other developer expected MS, when it got the majority of the phone market, to start creating their own native apps and choking off other developers like they did with Windows desktop. Just about every developer outside of Redmond was united against them.
The English always were a tad bit on the weird side in my opinion. 8>)
I’ve always despised Microsoft, Ballmer and Gates and their media sychophants. Windows is, and has always been a piece of sh1t.
I developed all my products for OS/2, a far superior and truly O-O operating system. To prove this, just perform a file move from one folder to another.
OS/2 still exists, was eComStation, now is ArcaNoae. Still far superior to Windows, Linux, and any other OS on the market.
I paid a high financial price for sticking to my firm beliefs. But even today, I would make the same decision. I will never give my customers crap. And Windows is crap!
Eh, not quite fair.
Microsoft bought DOS (86-DOS, a.k.a. QDOS) from Seattle Computer Products for a measly $50K, re-branded it MS-DOS, and licensed it to IBM as PC-DOS. All perfectly legal business.
OTOH, given what it was worth later, you might characterize it as "theft", but not in a legal sense, only in an ethical sense.
Over the years, Microsoft developed a lot of things on their own, and purchased and absorbed many more. They practiced many predatory business practices and got in trouble for it. They used the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" with many standards and protocols.
But it's not fair to say they never created anything -- they did. Some were successes, some were failures.
“”sporting a natty pink jumper” will never be used after my name. “
Unless natty is short for Natalie.
Pretty much true. I was in the UNIX world when gates and microsoft came on the market so we were interested in interfacing with ms/dos.
Gates was a dick.
Apple was much more accommodating, but that was understandable because ms/dos was getting bigger, faster and thought they didn't need any Unix vendors.
One of the dirtiest tricks in the Microsoft Book of Dirty Tricks.
As a developer whose applications and utilities had to run on Windows, that crap made me furious.
I grew sick and tired of Windows breaking stuff for no apparent reason other than Microsoft not being honest.
It's one of the main reasons I primarily use Linux and MacOS these days, and go into a Windows VM only for those tools that only run on Windows, or to test a cross-platform application on Windows. And hoping to God it doesn't fetch up against yet another place where Microsoft lied or screwed up. It's really freakin' annoying.
It could have been so much better.
Personally I don't blame Gates as much as Steve Ballmer. That man did more damage to Microsoft, and everything around it, than you can imagine.
One of my all-time favorites!
I nominate that Word is still not as good as WordPerfect was 20 years ago.
Microsoft’s biggest managerial mistake was going to their current update system. Their second was letting the QA deteriorate in their current update system. The third may be changing their licensing model, we’ll have to see about that one. All IMHO, of course.
That is correct Windows CE phones/pda were out in Europe well before the iPhone. When I move back to the US I was very disappointed in not seeing a CE phone on the market.
Microsoft had great products, they just had very poor marketing. I still use a Microsoft 950 phone today, the Camera outperforms todays Iphone. Thinking about buying a backup 950, just in case.
I'm sure you recall that prior to the IBM-PC and the rise of MS-DOS, Microsoft -WAS- a Unix company. In fact it was -the- Unix company, in some respects.
Remember XENIX? The Unix variant with the largest installed base (at that time)? That was Microsoft's product, from the time they licensed it from AT&T in 1978 until they sold it to SCO in 1987.
Microsoft positioned XENIX as their "multi-tasking, multi-user" operating system, and MS-DOS as their "single-tasking, single-user" operating system.
So I'm not sure what your comment refers to.
Among other things, they could have forestalled the rise of GNU/Linux to its current position as the premier server OS.
Windows is a poor general-purpose server OS -- it's an applications platform. Works fine for Windows applications, but it's awful for general server use.
Maybe, though, it's better that they tossed XENIX aside. Think of a world with only Microsoft operating systems.... (shudder) :-)
Do you know, OS/2 was developed by the team at Microsoft that for the previous decade had been their XENIX (Unix) development team?
"...[Microsoft] agreed with IBM to develop OS/2, and the Xenix team (together with the best MS-DOS developers) was assigned to that project..."That explains some of OS/2's excellence.
-- Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix)
Bill did everybody a favor by marrying Melinda and getting her out of management.
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.