!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: Gary Hildebrand <ghldbrd_at_ccp.com>
Date: Fri Apr 7 15:52:50 2000

Hello Paul

On 06-Apr-00, you wrote:

> Apparently, Zane Healy uttered some of the following:
>> OK, I can no longer resist commenting on this. WHERE IS MICROSOFT'S
> Amen, brother.
>> Let's look at some of their programs through the years.
>> Basically a port of DEC BASIC
> Unfortunately, way too many people think that MS invented BASIC,
> and don't know or want to know that Paul Allen just rearranged it to
> run on an Altair.
>> MS DOS:
>> They bought a clone of CP/M
> QDOS has been shown to have a significant portion of commands
> lifted from CP/M. Gary Kildall had a whole list, but the "author" of
> QDOS wouldn't own up to it. Again, MS just bought someone
> else's OS because they didn't have one of their own.
>> MS Windows:
>> Mac OS
> And to a degree, from Xerox. At least Apple had worked with
> Xerox's engineers. They brought it out first, made it work, made it
> accessible. Only after M$ saw that people were starting to like it
> did they try Windows. And Windows, unlike Mac OS or
> AmigaDOS, was simply a graphical patch on top of the real cash
> cow, MS-DOS. I mean, EVERY Mac and Amiga app worked with
> the given system mouse. With Windows, you had to decide if the
> mouse you were buying was compatible with your software, and
> then you had to install an interface card, and then you had to pray
> that it kept working. If the mouse on my Mac or my Amiga stops
> working, something is seriously hosed. Plus, the resolution on Mac
> and Amiga mice is way better than any Windows mouse.
>> MS Windows NT:
>> OS/2 and VMS (OK, so they did help develop this, but OS/2 was trash until
>> IBM took it over. Of course IBM blew it big time with OS/2.)
> First mistake was having MS write the original OS/2. Ballmer has
> said publicly that they only took on the project to keep in IBM's
> good graces. They had no incentive whatsoever to do a good job
> with it, as it would cut into their market share for MS-DOS. OS/2
> Warp3 and Warp4 kicked butt as OS's (fully
> multitasking/multithreaded, handled large disk volumes, no
> ridiculous 640k memory limitations). Only problem was lack of
> apps, and that was mainly due to MS's bullying and threat tactics
> to potential vendors and IBM itself. IBM should have pushed harder,
> but they caved too early.
>> MS Windows 95:
>> Mac OS and NeXTstep (OK, the "System Properties" in the "Control Panels"
>> is the one mildly cool thing about this. I don't know if there is prior
>> art of any type for this.).
> And they treated it like the second coming of Christ. Gates
> appeared on late night talk shows, everyone was talking about how
> MS developed this fabulous new operating system that would
> revolutionize the way people compute (unlike the more mature
> windowing OS's that Apple, NeXT, and Amiga or, for that matter,
> Atari had been using since the '80's). Everyone thought MS
> invented the mouse, and they were happy to let you believe that.
> And it was still just a graphical patch on top of DOS.
>> MS Explorer:
>> Netscape (I won't even credit them with having looked at Mosaic)
> Again, bought someone else's work and claimed it as their own.
> "Internet? Big deal. It's just a fad. Who cares?
> What? Netscape is actually making money? Ok. Here's what we
> do. Let's buy Mosaic, call it something Microsoft, bundle it with
> Windows, and tell people that we've decided the Internet is the
> wave of the future."
>> MS Window 98:
>> Bug fixes for '95 and bundled MS Explorer
> Right. Fixed 3,000 bugs in OSR2, which supposedly was a huge
> bug fix for 95a. Created about that many of it's own, plus obsoleted
> a bunch of hardware, and forced you to use a damn browser
> window to look at directories. Plus, it included that fabulous
> channel bar that would allow them to force advertising on you,
> except that outside their little Redmond paradis, not everyone has
> a T1 in their den.....or wants Disney stuff forced on to their desktop.
>> MS Windows 2000:
>> Technologies bought from everywhere, just how much of OpenVMS have they
>> licensed/bought for this? I actually want to give it a try, but haven't
>> had the chance.
> Internal memo from development indicated that the "Final Shipping
> Version" still had 65,000 bugs in it....and this was after thousands
> of suckers had paid $90 for a beta to work them out.....and then
> got no discount or credit towards the retail version, an annoying
> practice that dates back to Win95.
>> MS Word:
>> Various word processors
> Actually, came from Xerox PARC. Charles Simonyi wrote a
> WSYIWG wp for the Alto and when it looked like Xerox didn't have
> a clue what to do with it, MS hired him and he brought it with him.
> Only thing was, it had to be downgraded to run on DOS........
>> MS Excel:
>> Various spreadsheets
> Originally, a clone of Lotus 1-2-3, which was a blatant ripoff from
> VisiCalc, a fact which to this day Lotus's originator feels bad about.
>> MS PowerPoint:
>> Harvard Graphics
> I knew there was a prototype for this one, just wasn't sure what it
> was.
>> MS Foxpro (is this still around):
>> They bought it
> Yes, it's still around, and the one machine I had to install it on in
> my office suffered terminal registry errors and had to be reghosted
> back to a baseline install.
>> MS Access (isn't this the one that was a failed communications product):
> Don't know this one.
>> MS Access (the DB):
>> Various Databases, it's got a rep for loosing data last I heard.
> Clone of dBase.
>> MSASM, MS Fortran, MS C, etc.:
>> Ports of existing stuff
> Yup.
>> MS Visual BASIC:
>> Now this one has bothered me for several years, did they buy the
>> underlying technology or copy something that already existed. I've a
>> strange feeling that this one was actual innovation!
> Object-oriented programming was nothing new, and certainly
> wasn't a MS innovation.
>> There is other stuff, but I think that paints a fairly accurate picture
>> their innovation!
>> Basically their innovation is in copying existing stuff, repackaging it,
>> and tricking people into thinking they've just come up with something
> <rant>
> Microsoft should be heralded as the most successful marketing
> and advertising firm in the history of computing, but certainly not an
> innovator. By sheer stupid luck, they got hitched on to IBM at a
> time when personal computers were considered toys, but an "IBM
> PC" just HAD to be a real computer, right? Gate's real genius lies
> in his ability to dynamically rewrite history to fit his own needs and
> bully everyone into his way of doing things, no matter how wrong
> they are. Ballmer once said in an interview that it was more
> important to ship a product on time than it was to ship a product
> that worked. They could always issue service patches later. The
> real problem is that people just accept that and let them get away
> with it. Appliance operators who don't have a clue what is in their
> machines or even what an OS actually is know that they have to
> have "Intel Inside" (sorry Zane...) and Windows 2000 and Microsoft
> Office because that's what all the advertising has told them.
> Doesn't matter that an iMac may do everything they need faster
> and easier, it doesn't have Intel and Microsoft.
> Have they tried alternatives? Maybe WordPerfect would be better
> for them, but because MS told the PC builder that they'd yank their
> Windows license if they even thought about bundling WordPerfect,
> the user sees Word on the computer and just accepts it. Same
> with AOL or MSN.
> I'm tired and hungry now. This subject always sets me off. MS's
> original mission statement in 1975 says it all...."A pc on every
> desktop running MS software." It's not about money for Gates, it's
> about total control. He can't accept anything else, and can't
> understand why everyone else doesn't see things his way. It's in
> his psychology.
> </rant>
> Paul Braun
> Cygnus Productions
> nerdware_nospam_at_laidbak.com

May I stand up and applaud your honesty . . .

May I add a couple of quotes from an old college roommate who went on to
design harddrives fro Hewlett-Packard, IOmega and Maxtor . . . .

1. Once a computer or operating system becomes a standard, it is

2. You can't BS electrons.

Gary Hildebrand
Amiga lover forever
Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 15:52:50 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:40 BST