Comments on: The History of MS http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/ Linux, politics, and other interesting things Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:45:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Don Marti http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14611 Don Marti Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:39:52 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14611 etbe -- sure, but the basic Windows NT/MSFT Office cash cow was fundamentally done in 1996. The main successful technical project they have pulled off since then was Windows XP--finally getting the WNT underpinnings into the Windows 95 market. On DRM, there has always been an assumption in the PC industry that faster and faster hardware would make any software dumbassitude invisible, like supply-side economists saying you can grow your way out of any national debt. etbe — sure, but the basic Windows NT/MSFT Office cash cow was fundamentally done in 1996. The main successful technical project they have pulled off since then was Windows XP–finally getting the WNT underpinnings into the Windows 95 market. On DRM, there has always been an assumption in the PC industry that faster and faster hardware would make any software dumbassitude invisible, like supply-side economists saying you can grow your way out of any national debt.

]]> By: Felipe Sateler http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14604 Felipe Sateler Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:11:50 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14604 etbe: I was talking about their development process. etbe: I was talking about their development process.

]]> By: etbe http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14596 etbe Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:04:57 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14596 Felipe: The entire ISO standardisation of document formats issue shows that MS has not changed. They have utter contempt for anyone who is unfortunate enough to buy their software. Don: Interesting idea that MS are floundering now that they are the establishment. Although I think it should be noted that they have been "the establishment" since about 1996 (when IBM gave up on OS/2) and that for a while after that time they did quite well. As for the DRM stuff, I find it difficult to imagine that selling products that customers don't want would succeed long-term regardless of what Congress might do. AlphaG: I believe that the 1.x versions of OS/2 were all jointly written by MS and IBM right from the start and that they both had rights to use the code base. It was an interesting coincidence that some of the suckiest areas of code in OS/2 matched the sucky areas of NT. For example I was told that the OS/2 named pipe code was regarded as being too horrible to touch (it worked and no-one wanted to risk changing anything) and the NT 3.1 and 3.51 named pipe code was buggy (debug a process using named pipes and the machine would lock up). After the split IBM had access to Windows source code, they used modified Windows 3.1 source in developing OS/2. There was a reciprocal agreement with MS, I'm not sure of the scope but suspect that MS had some rights to use OS/2 2.0 source. Felipe: The entire ISO standardisation of document formats issue shows that MS has not changed. They have utter contempt for anyone who is unfortunate enough to buy their software.

Don: Interesting idea that MS are floundering now that they are the establishment. Although I think it should be noted that they have been “the establishment” since about 1996 (when IBM gave up on OS/2) and that for a while after that time they did quite well. As for the DRM stuff, I find it difficult to imagine that selling products that customers don’t want would succeed long-term regardless of what Congress might do.

AlphaG: I believe that the 1.x versions of OS/2 were all jointly written by MS and IBM right from the start and that they both had rights to use the code base. It was an interesting coincidence that some of the suckiest areas of code in OS/2 matched the sucky areas of NT. For example I was told that the OS/2 named pipe code was regarded as being too horrible to touch (it worked and no-one wanted to risk changing anything) and the NT 3.1 and 3.51 named pipe code was buggy (debug a process using named pipes and the machine would lock up).

After the split IBM had access to Windows source code, they used modified Windows 3.1 source in developing OS/2. There was a reciprocal agreement with MS, I’m not sure of the scope but suspect that MS had some rights to use OS/2 2.0 source.

]]> By: AlphaG http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14589 AlphaG Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:37:11 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14589 The fact that OS/2 (the protected-mode preemptively multi-tasking DOS) didn’t succeed in the market was largely due to MS. Interestingly I would disagree and agree with this. MS wrote the first version and its dot releases for IBM. At some time MS and IBM had a falling out with strategy and other relationship itesm. At this time Windows NT was then started on, and as I understand it MS developers were not able to review/reuse the code they had written for OS/2. This was about the time Cutler came on board. The fact that OS/2 (the protected-mode preemptively multi-tasking DOS) didn’t succeed in the market was largely due to MS.

Interestingly I would disagree and agree with this. MS wrote the first version and its dot releases for IBM. At some time MS and IBM had a falling out with strategy and other relationship itesm. At this time Windows NT was then started on, and as I understand it MS developers were not able to review/reuse the code they had written for OS/2. This was about the time Cutler came on board.

]]> By: Don Marti http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14588 Don Marti Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:45:57 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14588 MSFT at its best has been on the side of the non-user or the novice user against the IT establishment -- offering not-quite-good but disruptive tools such as Microsoft Access to make the application you couldn't get from your IT department or vendor. They've been floundering now that they are the establishment. (The DRM problem is that they <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=node/1342" rel="nofollow">designed the Vista product when the CBDTPA DRM mandate was looming over the USA</a>. If it had passed, the investment in cycle-sucking restrictions would have looked prescient.) MSFT at its best has been on the side of the non-user or the novice user against the IT establishment — offering not-quite-good but disruptive tools such as Microsoft Access to make the application you couldn’t get from your IT department or vendor. They’ve been floundering now that they are the establishment.

(The DRM problem is that they designed the Vista product when the CBDTPA DRM mandate was looming over the USA. If it had passed, the investment in cycle-sucking restrictions would have looked prescient.)

]]> By: Felipe Sateler http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/07/01/history-of-ms/comment-page-1/#comment-14587 Felipe Sateler Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:31:03 +0000 http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=626#comment-14587 I am not going to use software written by people with such a poor attitude if given a choice. While this is certainly a good idea, I'm not really sure it fits the current situation of MS. I am no insider, but as I gather from a person I knew from MS, things have changed internally quite a bit in the last decade. As an example, this guy told me that 8 or 10 years ago the _only_ functional requirement for MS software was to be easy to use. Today the situation has changed, as MS has actively changed development policies to create better software (in particular, this guy was commenting wrt to security). I'd say that in general MS software is really much better now than it was 10 or more years ago, maybe because they are no longer given that choice. I am not going to use software written by people with such a poor attitude if given a choice.
While this is certainly a good idea, I’m not really sure it fits the current situation of MS. I am no insider, but as I gather from a person I knew from MS, things have changed internally quite a bit in the last decade. As an example, this guy told me that 8 or 10 years ago the _only_ functional requirement for MS software was to be easy to use. Today the situation has changed, as MS has actively changed development policies to create better software (in particular, this guy was commenting wrt to security).
I’d say that in general MS software is really much better now than it was 10 or more years ago, maybe because they are no longer given that choice.

]]>