You know what I really love about this argument of theirs, that size = proof of superiority? The only reason the PC/Intel/Windows industry is a giant behemoth today is because of two total twists of fate 23 years ago:
1) The dumb luck (for Bill Gates) that Gary Kildall of Digital Research was so arrogant and stupid that he refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement with IBM when they were practically on their knees begging him to let them use his CP/M OS on the original IBM PC. (To make it even more ironic, they were at Kildall's feet because Gates had personally recommended they go with CP/M. At first, they only wanted Gates to write up a version of BASIC they could ship with the new PC. Gates wasn't particularly interested in creating an OS from scratch anyway.)
2) After Kildall gave IBM the cold shoulder, Gates relented and, still not wanting to build an OS from scratch, instead bought the rights to something called QDOS for $50K. He then made the necessary modifications so that it would work on the PC, and renamed it MS-DOS. Then, in the other bit of pure stupid luck, IBM decided to simply license MS-DOS from Microsoft instead of buying the rights, leaving Gates free to sell it to whoever else he wanted.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows' technical superiority or the lack thereof. The entire Wintel behemoth is based entirely on those two strokes of plain old luck that occurred well before the first PC even shipped.
This very very true – but that was 20 years ago.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows' technical superiority or the lack thereof. The entire Wintel behemoth is based entirely on those two strokes of plain old luck that occurred well before the first PC even shipped.
WRONG!
Microsoft and the IBM PC are the reasons we had the Personal Computer revolution (and Apple has ridden the Microsoft wave). The key to the computer revolution is positioning the computer as an appliance – a means to an end. Microsoft gave us affordable software that fueled PC growth and allowed the Internet model to work.
Windows has proven itself to be technologically superior to all other competing operating systems – period. No operating systems is perfect – but Apple and IBM both failed in creating an operating systems that address the needs of both the personal computer market and the business computer market. Unix has been trying to break into the PC OS game from the beginning but it has never beyond the 25% mark throughout the PC history. Unix variants may be the future, but they sure are no the present.
Your knowledge of computer history is greatly lacking. When Gates made the deal with IBM, Apple was riding high with the Apple II (the prototype of the IBM PC, the machine that gave us the computer revolution). You left out one important point – the IBM PC became so popular because it was a better computer. Apple was in a position to be the IBM PC but they got the stupid idea to create a closed-system that did not allow third party venders and forced everybody to buy all software and hardware from one company – truly the “communist computer system”. Since the introduction of the Mac – Apple slowly has sunk into semi-obscurity – the also-ran computer system.
Apple overlooked all the market factors and trends in the computer industry and focused mainly on profits – “if we are the only vender of the hardware and software, we can make a killing”. The only thing they killed was their dominance in the computer world.
Microsoft is the computer revolution – they have done the right things at the right time. They helped give us affordable software. Microsoft is far from perfect but no other computer company has done it better.
IBM has a chance to challenge Microsoft’s dominance in the PC OS world with OS/2 – they failed. Why? It is pretty damn hard to write a complex GUI OS that addresses all the needs of the wide open computer market. The Mac keeps up mainly because they greatly limit the opinions and technologies supported by their OS.
The Wintel world has proven itself to be technically superior the Apple products year after year after year and that is why business in general pretty much has completely rejected the Apple. The Mac has its moments – sometimes it is superior to anything in the PC world but when you take in the big picture, the Mac just does not cut it.
Microsoft’s magic is their ability to see the big picture.
Apple addresses the needs of a very small niche in the computer industry – and they do a damn good job of it. But when you take in the big picture, Apple is little more than a sleek, pretty also-ran.