% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Microsoft Corporation Message Board

  • zbc407 zbc407 Sep 3, 2013 2:18 PM Flag

    MSFT was always a mistake that should never have existed anyway, IBM basically created this company by error

    IBM thought the big money was in the hardware, ha ha

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fight history why don't you?

      Microsoft, before Big Blue got into the skunk-works PC business was the champion of the mainframe industry dominance, not the vanguards of personal expression/computing power. While Microsoft was gifted with control over the OS, they did that because IBM did not see fit to fund a major development operation or, much more simply, to acquire Digital Research or Microsoft. Just because IBM was unaware of the potential for the nascent PC industry and networked competing that followed, does not give the fellow idiots the excuse for the foundation era mistake does it?

      Read my lips sharezombie: Microsoft has not choice to either steer the Titanic organization into the OS-device industry or perish an impending sharp decline in sales and a further eroding of their declining piece of the emerging ICT industry dominance.

      Microsoft has lost the race into participation in the pivotal mobile device main flow.

      The PC/laptop is the 'ol boat anchor... necessary but its got to go down in price because innovation is dead-ended.

      Because the wireless networks combined with higher capacity Ethernet GigE to 100GigE, fiber optic to feed the 6 billion device monster market mobile device network of which Microsoft hardly has a clue of how to handle. MS was caught blind-sided because the volume of devices used to interface with popular content and applications has fundamentally changed, already obsoleting the ferver of the company to such a degree it will see a decline in sales in major market areas of OS, office, and maybe business service areas.

      The choice for Microsoft has been, for quite some time, to jump into mobile device OS and markets inline with the way Google is doing it, which is to offer it free or soon enough to have captured enough share as to set the industry tone. That chance has been gone for over four years... partly because Microsoft has been so morribund and slow to recognize their peril and partly because the company is so slow

    • Apple was the first to mass produce PC's and IBM wanted to enter the PC market but they didn't have a O/S so they went to Apple for a deal to use the Apple O/S and Steve Jobs refused to let IBM use his O/S, he wanted to lock up both the hardware & software markets.
      IBM then went to Microsoft where Bill Gates and friends were running around barefooted. IBM offered to buy windows for a million dollars but Gates said no to that but he would let IBM use his O/S for a fee on each PC it was installed on, and that was the most important business decision in the 20th century, that made Gates the richest man on the planet.

      Sentiment: Buy

    • IBM went to MS for a PC operating system because of an upper-class charity-drive connection that Gate's mother had.

      MS didn't have an operating system but only a Basic programming language.

      MS sent IBM to buy CP/M. Then both MS and IBM claimed that business could not be conducted with the developer of CP/M. A more likely explanation is that the developer of CP/M wanted a per-user licencing structure which was a developing fundamental of software of the time. MS then had someone develop a clone of CP/M which MS sold to IBM as DOS and under a per-user licencing structure. A few years later the developer of DOS tried to sue for slander against a claim that DOS was copied directly from portions of CP/M but they lost the case. Of course the developer of CP/M did win some lawsuits but the awards were small in comparison to the future growth of the PC market.

      (We might say here that rich-people networks don't like to buy things from those not in the network.)

      DR-DOS, related to CP/M, can be bought and installed to this day.

      A few years later, IBM promised to expand and support use of SCO Unixware through Project Monterey. But Unixware was likely just added to Red Hat Linux and Red Hat quickly became a commercial enterprise product. Then Novell, which was a former owner of Unixware, might have added Unix code to Suse Linux. And Sun Microsystems probably added Solaris to its Linux. And none of these developments likely contributed to open source code and the entire premise of open source fell apart with new variants of open source licensing conditions.

    • IBM could easily have created its own operating system, but at the time the company was operating under an antitrust consent decree that prevented it bundling its own software with its own hardware. So it was a misstep, but unavoidable.

      • 1 Reply to wottowwottow
      • Not quite right. At the time the initial PC was developed there was a need for a minimal operating system to have a usable, saleable product. Somehow Gates beat MSFT to buy the most likely piece of software product that could fill the bill. IBM then gave Gates a contract to beef it up for IBM's use on the PCs which were being rushed to market. The first OS product was strictly stop-gap and MSFT was building a very sophisticated operating system for the PC which it called, OS/2. Unfortunately for IBM, OS/2 took suffered many delays in its development and MSFT took advantage of the delays to swiftly upgrade its product and market it independently under the MSFT label. By the time IBM'S OS/2 was ready, Windows had captured the market. So, effectively Gates & MSFT bit the arm off the hand that had fed it.

45.35-0.59(-1.28%)Jul 27 4:00 PMEDT