If Microsoft never existed...

[escuchamezz]

sfd

[Stormy Eyes]

If Microsoft didn't exist, Unix geeks would still be snarling at IBM.

[Ride Jib]

Yes. Microsoft has sculpted desktop computing from where it was in the 80's.

And yes, there are now alternatives to their products making it more affordable to more people.

I think I am missing the point to this post?

[jimcooncat]

Would I still be using CP/M?

[matthew]

I think I am missing the point to this post? The point is to rile up the masses and cause confusion and disarray. So far escuchamezz just loves to troll.

[poofyhairguy]

If your point is: That without MS general computers and their parts would be more expensive then I agree.

If your point is: That without MS the computer market would have been worse for the comsumer than I disagree. Those Apple products sure are nice.

[Brunellus]

how is cheaper bad for the consumer?

[poofyhairguy]

how is cheaper bad for the consumer?


I guess if the quality is below satisfying levels.

Good point though.

[mstlyevil]

If Microsoft didn't exist, someone else would have done what MS did first. The market would have demanded compatibility and cost effectiveness. Bill Gates just saw the market earlier than anyone else did.

[Pablo_Escobar]

If Microsoft didn't exist, Linux wouldn't have the same sweet taste :)

[aysiu]

I guess if a means to an end is always justified by the end, then Microsoft is the god of affordable personal computing.

On the other hand, affordable personal computing isn't the only end that's worthy of striving for, and sometimes means are important to think about. Hm. Ethics. Abiding by laws. Hm. I'd like some more choice. I don't know legally whether Microsoft is a monopoly or isn't a monopoly. All I know is that most users lack real choice. Windows = computer for most people. Mac is some weird alternative. Linux almost doesn't exist.

[KingBahamut]

If MS didnt exist, Apache would still be the most used webserver there is. If MS does exist, Apache is still the most widely used webserver.

[Brunellus]

those computers are out there and the hardware is now unbelievably cheap. For all of that, we have Microsoft to thank.

The hope is that we can discard Microsoft like a rocket discards spent booster stages, and move on to a freer software environment.

[mstlyevil]

those computers are out there and the hardware is now unbelievably cheap. For all of that, we have Microsoft to thank.

The hope is that we can discard Microsoft like a rocket discards spent booster stages, and move on to a freer software environment.

I still say it would have happened without Microsoft. competition is ultimately what caused computer components to get so cheap, not Microsoft.

[Stormy Eyes]

If Gary Kildall hadn't decided to blow off his appointments, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten its foot into IBM's door; the IBM PC would use CP/M as its OS, and there would still be IBM compatible machines.

[aysiu]

I still say it would have happened without Microsoft. competition is ultimately what caused computer components to get so cheap, not Microsoft. I'd say demand is what causes it, along with mass production. iPods have gotten cheaper and cheaper, as did Walkmen, as did VCRs, as did DVD players, as did CD-ROM drives. Technology always starts out expensive, then gets dirt cheap as more and more people adopt it. I suspect that pretty soon plasma TVs will become more affordable.

[blastus]

those computers are out there and the hardware is now unbelievably cheap. For all of that, we have Microsoft to thank.

I'm not sure I understand the logic. Microsoft has nothing to do with the cost of hardware. The cost of computing hardware has dropped because of competition and increased demand. If anything, Microsoft is responsible for increasing the cost of computing as they force OEMs and manufacturers to exclusively license Windows and Windows drivers for everything.

Even Microsoft acknowledges that competition drives lower prices. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312505174825/d10k.htm#tx69164_3) states; "To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, sales of our products may decline, we may have to reduce the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins may consequently decline. The reverse is also true. You could say "To the extent that we sustain our monopolies on the markets, we will be able to raise the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins will consequently increase."

[Goober]

I fail to understand why MS makes the price of the Computer hardware less. Microsoft makes Operating Systems, and writes lines of code that become buggy software that doesn't work the way we want it to, they don't make hardrives and RAM and such. Sure, they make keyboards, and my beloved MS Mouse (ok, MS makes ONE good product), but they don't make the inner bits to computers.

Could someone explain this to me please?

[phrozen]

from my way of looking at it, micrososft made computers more firendly to the average person and the demand for hardware increased, leading to a decline in prices because hardware makers could afford to lower prices, attracting evan more people to computing because there profits kept on increasing, allthough if micorsoft hadnt done it someone else would have, but still if micrososft hadnt put computers within the average consumers reach computers would have stayed extremely expensive because they would have only been aimed at a very small market
if that didnt make any sense ill try again
imagine if the computing world had stayed with CLI, fine for some people, not for most who dont want to leanr or dont have the time to learn, if that had have happened there would not be at least one computer in most houses and hundreds in schools, if that had have happened then hardware manerfacturers would have had to charge extremely large prices because they need profit to keep going, i could probably keep on going but im tired and not sure if any of that made sense so im going to stop, actaully one more thing, because theyre is such a large demand for computers now, hardware is mass produced, wich is cheaper for the company, so they can sell at lower prices, but still prices that are high enough for them to make a good profit

[Wolki]

imagine if the computing world had stayed with CLI,

That would be a point if Microsoft invented GUIs. They didn't.

[blueturtl]

Everyone who argues what Microsoft has done is good for the consumer ought to think again. Basically the difference between PCs and propriatory platforms such as IBM, Apple etc is that PCs were built upon the idea of openness. Anyone can build a PC of the components they choose, and it will still be compatible with other PCs. PC owners also have a choice of software. Or atleast they were supposed to. What I'm trying hard to say and am not sure will be understood is: since mainstream users want systems that are alike, functional and get away with as little as possible, the choice of PC as the home computer is wrong in the first place! Mainstream users should have gone for Apple or another brand of computers that work well together and let them do their business. The experienced users and geeks are the ones who'd choose a PC because they would then have the freedom to modify their computer as they please. Now that Microsoft reigns, PC as the original idea of a modular computer is suffering. It's suffering from becoming a Microsoft only technology - and since Microsoft is merely trying to mimic Apple (only without providing the hardware themselves, thus riding on the tech provided by a legion of hardware vendors) the benefits of PC are lost to almost 90% of computer users today!

I felt like my PC was a giant paperweight when using Windows. All the possibilities were somehow lost. I could do *all* the same things on much older hardware and older versions of Windows with a bit of tweaking. An average user would propably realize being cheated if they knew PCs more than ten years old are still perfectly adequate for browsing the web, text editing, programming, email and such if you don't run Microsoft software on them!

I argue if Microsoft never existed Apple would be the standard for homeusers, and PCs would still be in use mostly by beirded scientists and geeks with real operating systems such as *nix or BSD variants. I also argue we would be happier about this.

[jc87]

Sooner or later , would born several companies selling OS for the home pc market , as MS does , the difference would be that for example there would be for egxample at least 3 companies .

From the egxistence of thoose 3 companies would egxist major differences :

-If we imagine that thoose companies would have simlar market pieces , none of them could try impose closed formats , because the others would open processes against , and in spite of that , would be unpossible to try to impose closed formats due to the lack of an actual monopoly .

-Current Ms charges a little fortune by they OS , if there was 3 major Home OS producers , not only there would be concorrency (which would force them to lower the price) , but also there would be profits divided by 3 , and would been less founds to finance their OS development.

If they had less founding , not only they would develop less extra software (like IE or outlook) , but also had less resoures avaiable for stuff like kernel and such .

Now you must thinking , oh no jc , that means we would be a couple of years behind in software were we are right now , actually is the opposite , they would eventually be forced to use some free software (or open source , the term you prefer) , like the Gnu tools , the Linux kernel , Kde , Gnome , konqueror , etc... in a similar model that apple does using some BSD stuff , and also contribute with code and founding.

It could appear some new open source licenses , for egxample , one which you are free to use this code , copy it , change it , share the code , etc... (like the GPL ) but with the difference if you charge for it selling directly a software poduct that contain it , you have to send a % to the community (off course only to certain stuff).

So if Microevil never would egxisted , not only we all would be unsing some free software , as we all would have better freedom of choice of the OS that is better for us (and companies would have to suport officially the software for longer , even the closed source licenses would give us better liberties , et... ).

[drogoh]

If Microsoft never existed... we would all be using Macs and Steve Jobs would be the richest man in the world.

[Stormy Eyes]

That would be a point if Microsoft invented GUIs. They didn't.

Xerox did, and never did anything with it.

[jeffreyvergara.NET]

If Microsoft never existed... we would all be using Macs and Steve Jobs would be the richest man in the world.

and maybe there will be few Linux distro out there. and maybe Ubuntu will never exist? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[jatos]

I think what would have changed the market more than Microsoft existing is if Apple didn't make their OS for one pc type only. If Microsoft never existed and Apple with a bit of luck would have ported their OS to X86 and we would all be using Mac, but then I think we would havve ended with the same situation we are in now with one company (ie apple) dominating and not giving much room to others.

[Kapre]

If Microsoft never existed.....there will be no Gates..no Windows...no Problem... (who's using this signature before?)...

Now we wonder.

K

[Wolki]

Xerox did, and never did anything with it.

The second part is true, the first part debatable.

Wikipedia has some entries before Xerox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_GUI

It's clear though that Xerox did a lot of good work. I can somehow understand that a company creating photocopiers was scared by their own developments in this drection.

[mstlyevil]

I think what would have changed the market more than Microsoft existing is if Apple didn't make their OS for one pc type only. If Microsoft never existed and Apple with a bit of luck would have ported their OS to X86 and we would all be using Mac, but then I think we would havve ended with the same situation we are in now with one company (ie apple) dominating and not giving much room to others.

Steve Jobs is too dumb to ever let his OS work on anything but Apple approved hardware. He beat Bill Gates out the door with a Newbie friendly OS and then let ol Wille steal it from them before they positioned themselves to sell it to other manufactuers. They tried liscensing it after Windows ruled the desktop and failed. The other problem with that theory is that Macs are closed source hardware and would be too expensive for most of todays computer users if they did rule the computer market. The PC would have been the machine one way or another because of the freedom of choice and competition keeps prices within range of most people. Apple would have to open up to become the standard and that just would have never happened.