RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs

RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 3:26:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Professor Gary Kildall had a Ph.D. in computer science. He was a genius who wrote the first truly successful operating system for micro-computers. Bill Gates stole his OS, and called it MS-DOS. Gates then leased it to IBM, then leased it to the public. First of all, get your history correct: Gary Kildall invented/created "CPM" which was a superior operating system to "MS-DOS" (which {MS-DOS} was purchased from Tim Patterson of Tukwila Washington (NOT Gary Kildall as you've stated) by Microsoft for approx. 50 grand)...by the way...it was called (by Tim Patterson) "QDOS" (which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System"). Tim sold it for a reasonable price which included in his signed contract a statement that clarified with no hesitation whatsoever that "Microsoft would sell this software to various companies, including but not limited to International Business Machines" (IBM), and he later sued for several million dollars for breach...and won (oddly). When Gary Kildall came out with his own Intel 8088 compatible OS, DR-DOS, Bill Gates instructed his employees to spread a false rumor that it was not compatible with software written MS-DOS. Bill Gates put all his effort into addiing all kinds of quirks and ineffeciencies into MS-DOS so programs written for it would not work with DR-DOS. (I would have done no less). Bill Gates in clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust act told all computer manufacturers that he would not sell them any product including MS-DOS, if they offered any computer with DR-DOS or any rival operating system. Bill Gates then bought up second-rate computer applications and ordered computer manufactures to give them away free with their new computers. He used his clout as sole manufacturer of MS-DOS and latter Windows, to position his second-rate computer applications as the de facto business standard. Word Perfect was better than Word, Oracle and other spread sheet programs were better than the one Bill Gates made the de facto standard. And Apple has always been a better computer than PCs. Emphasis..."was better". Considering that Word perfect is still available (as is Lotus "Smart Suite")...both of which cost approx. 1/2 of what Microsoft offerings sell for...which should suggest to any right thinking person, knowing that they offer all Microsoft compatibility (in every aspect) that Microsoft isn't cornering the market....DOH!!!! People think Bill Gates is a smart guy, when it was mostly his lack of ethics that made him what he is. Gary Kildall did not initially sue Bill Gates and IBM because he feared the suit would be costly, and every attorney told him he would pay more in attorney fees, than he would collect from Bill Gates and IBM even if he won. No one at the time knew how much MS-DOS would be worth, and that includes Bill Gates. It was not sweat off Bill Gate's brow because whatever he made was sheer profit, since he was licensing a program he didn't own. (GAWD you need to learn to write). And of course he owned it...the record shows he purchased it, with a legal contract, and even major competitors now agree that computers today are easier to use thanks to Microsoft's efforts. Even though the US court system found that Bill Gates blantantly violated the Sherman Anti-trust act for ten years, all they did was give him a slap on the wrist. The judge who actually heard the case wanted to do a lot more, but higher judges wouldn't let him do anything but slap Microsoft on the wrist. I have a distinctly different opinion than you (as do/does most of America, and ironically...our courts).

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 3:35:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip I posted this to twenty websites, and not a single person agreed with me. They all blasted me for trying to tarnish Bill Gate's reputation. I say, "Look at the Wikipedia entree for Bill Gates and Gary Kildall." Of course...look at Wikipedia...a source written by 4 billion people with an opinion and the opportunity to state it. Yes...trust Wikipedia (and, of course, "WhiptheHip")... (What was I thinking?)

Sinergy -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 4:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee TY for that, WhiptheHip. i used an Apple PC in my Masters in Tax Law program, and was totally computer-illerate at the time. i remember well how user-friendly that computer and its software were. i very much doubt i could have written my thesis on a Microsoft PC with its software, as it existed then. When it was time for a new pc, i bit the bullet and bought a Dell, with Internet Explorer and Word, etc. At the time, i was working for a law professor, whose PC was of course networked, and also Windows based. It was not possible to "translate" from Apple to Microsoft, as far as i knew then, so i felt i had no choice. Now i have Windows XP and am routinely dragged to the Microsoft site for downloads meant to "fix" little "bugs" in XP. This has been going for five years. For the life of me, i cannot understand why Microsoft released XP at all if it was so damned defective. BTW, i also agree with You about the results of the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft. i am somewhat familiar with that area of law, and IMO, the proper remedy was, among other things, the disassemblage of the Microsoft Corp into baby corps, unrelated to one another. The Microsoft case only tended to show what i had come to believe from the insurance company fraud cases i had handled: if the violation of the law is egregious enough -- and i mean really flagrant -- and the defendant is wealthy, the penalty is inversely proportionate to the harm done. pinkee Hello A/all, As a former system administrator for Microsnot, Unix, and Apple computer networks, I would have to agree with WhipTheHip's analysis of Bill Gates' lack of ethics. I am not sure he necessarily ordered anybody to do anything, he simply donated operating systems on PCs to most major universities, knowing that those graduates would use the same type of systems they were familiar with in school. It was a lovely business strategy and made him a zillionaire. Speaking of the anti-trust lawsuit. This came about because Microsnot tried to put Sun out of business, which would be a great thing for Microsnot because most servers on the web run on Solaris, Irix, etc. Microsnot is too slow and problem ridden to function as an efficient server. Sun, instead of doing what Apple had done in suing and counter-suing the Evil Microsnot empire and being eventually forced to go bankrupt, simply got the goverment involved in an anti-trust lawsuit which Gates and Microsnot eventually lost, resulting in the decoupling of most network services under Windoze, as well as public access to Windoze network protocols and the ability to run non-Micorsoft software (like Firefox, which I use) on Windoze systems. Then Linus Torvalds wrote a small UNIX shell which runs under Intel architectures, apple architectures, etc., and proceeded to make alarming inroads into Microsnot's business, since the source code was public access and every teenager with too much coffee in him could hijack Microsoft products under open source. The primary reason why Microsnot Windoze is so problematic as an operating system, so rife with virus attacks, etc., was a decision made by the programmers who coded the system to allow image execution in documents, images, etc., without the user's knowledge. This was seen as a wonderful way to do things under the radar FOR the user, but in turn was co-opted by virus writers and hackers everywhere to allow Windoze to shoot itself in the head by running things it should not run. Linux and Apple computers do not do this, so while they can be attacked by viruses, they dont automatically load and run software without thinking about it or asking the user if they want it loaded first. While it is lovely that Bill and Melinda donate so much to so many things, if you really look at the sorts of things they donate money to, like HIV treatments in Africa, it becomes apparent that what Bill and Melinda really fear are people doing to him (stealing his proprietary inventions, like Microsoft, which he actually stole from somebody else) what he did to Apple and others. The thing they most fear is a legal precedent against the pharmaceutical companies to release their research and formulae for medicines for the public good. If Microsnot was forced to release their source code, everybody and their dog would write their own versions and Microsnot's control would end. What I am curious about is whether Vista will allow code execution embedded in documents and images the way Windoze does. I suspect it will. I always find it fascinating when people refuse to learn from their mistakes. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 4:21:26 PM)
LTRsubNW wrote: > First of all, get your history correct First of all, I do have my history correct. It is always the ignoramuses that presume they must be right, and I must be wrong. > Gary Kildall invented/created "CPM" which was a superior > operating system to "MS-DOS" (which {MS-DOS) MS-DOS was Bill Gate's name for CP/M!!!! > was purchased from Tim Patterson of Tukwila Washington > (NOT Gary Kildall as you've stated) by Microsoft for approx. > 50 grand)...by the way...it was called (by Tim Patterson) "QDOS" > (which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System"). DUH! Seattle Computer products built a computer around the Intel 8088 chip, and needed an operating system for it. Gary Kildall had the best one. They asked Gary Kildall to modify CP/M so it would run on the 8088 chip. They didn't offer Kildall enough, so Gary refused. Seattle Computer Products then asked one of their programmers to illegally write a patch for Kildall's CP/M, so it would run on Intel's 8088 chip. This programmer's name was Tim Paterson. He called his modification of CP/M: "Q-DOS" because it was a quick and dirty modification of CP/M. Anyone who thinks Tim Paterson could have writen Q-DOS on his own has to be a nincompoop. Tim Paterson was a third-rate programmer whose programming abilities were far from being able to write such a successful micro-computer OS. CP/M, Q-DOS, MS-DOS were due to the genius of Gary Kildall and no one else. And Gary got shafted. Tim Paterson did not have the right to modify CP/M. Whatever Tim Paterson did for Seattle Computer Products belonged to Seattle Computer Products, not Tim Paterson, because that is the way American law works. What you do for a company as a salaried employee of that company belongs to the company not you. So Tim Paterson selling Q-DOS to Bill Gates would be like me selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. Tim Paterson did not own Q-DOS and neither did Seattle Computer Products. Dozens of top programers testified for Gary Kildall that Q-DOS was simply an illegal clone of CP/M. That Tim Paterson copied CP/M code line for line. When asked to explain the purpose of various lines of code in Q-DOS Tim Paterson could not do it, and Gary Kildall could. In the end, Tim Paterson admitted he had simply copied CP/M line for line. > Tim sold it for a reasonable price which included in his > signed contract a statement that clarified with no hesitation > whatsoever that "Microsoft would sell this software to various > companies, including but not limited to International Business > Machines" (IBM), and he later sued for several million dollars > for breach...and won (oddly). You don't know what you are talking about. Tim Paterson did not own Q-DOS. Bill Gates knew that, that is why he also paid Seattle Computer Products for Q-DOS. Gates also knew Seattle Products didn't own Q-DOS, but he figured that by this point he had so complicated the picture, that stupid Americans would not be able to figure out what happened, and by the time they did, it would be too late. [Mod Note: Font size reduced]

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 4:27:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip I posted this to twenty websites, and not a single person agreed with me. They all blasted me for trying to tarnish Bill Gate's reputation. I say, "Look at the Wikipedia entree for Bill Gates and Gary Kildall." Of course...look at Wikipedia...a source written by 4 billion people with an opinion and the opportunity to state it. Yes...trust Wikipedia (and, of course, "WhiptheHip")... (What was I thinking?) No, I don't trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia has it wrong!!! That was my point!!! I merely cite Wikipedia to prove that most people have it wrong! You say the number is 4 billion, I say whatever. It only goes to prove that most people don't know that Bill Gates stole MS-DOS from Gary Kildall, and you my fine, feathered friend are one of them. I followed Gary Kildall's suit against Bill Gates, and have a copy of it. [Mod Note: Font size reduced]

LTRsubNW -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 5:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip LTRsubNW wrote: > First of all, get your history correct First of all, I do have my history correct. It is always the ignoramuses that presume they must be right, and I must be wrong. (You are indeed incorrect...it is in fact the ignoramuses that most need historical correction). > Gary Kildall invented/created "CPM" which was a superior > operating system to "MS-DOS" (which {MS-DOS) MS-DOS was Bill Gate's name for CP/M!!!! (I doubt that (and in fact history shows entirely to the contrary}, considering CP/M was a product manufactured by Gary Kildall (which, by the way, was not at all what Microsoft later purchased as MS-DOS), which was a product that IBM actually decided against, after several attempts to purchase it (even after Bill Gates twice told IBM {on two separate visits} "we don't do operating systems"). > was purchased from Tim Patterson of Tukwila Washington > (NOT Gary Kildall as you've stated) by Microsoft for approx. > 50 grand)...by the way...it was called (by Tim Patterson) "QDOS" > (which stood for "Quick and Dirty Operating System"). DUH! Seattle Computer products built a computer around the Intel 8088 chip, and needed an operating system for it. (Actually, Seattle Computer never built a computer around anything, rather, they developed the operating system called "QDOS" around a computer called the "Altair", which they modified through code to "approximate" the 8088 chip {which by the way, Gary Kildall's web site, Tim Pattersons web site, Seattle Computer Products [old web site] and of course Microsofts web site all will attest}). (You'd be advised to do your research in real time, as opposed to simply copying and pasting your "research" from Yahoo, which, by the way, anyone can verify by simply moving their cursor over your "research" and discovering the "Yahoo" logo when doing so). Gary Kildall had the best one. (I agree, as does anyone else who not only does their own research...but...has cerebral accuity). They asked Gary Kildall to modify CP/M so it would run on the 8088 chip. They didn't offer Kildall enough, so Gary refused. Seattle Computer Products then asked one of their programmers to illegally write a patch for Kildall's CP/M, so it would run on Intel's 8088 chip. This programmer's name was Tim Paterson. He called his modification of CP/M: "Q-DOS" because it was a quick and dirty modification of CP/M. Anyone who thinks Tim Paterson could have writen Q-DOS on his own has to be a nincompoop. Tim Paterson was a third-rate programmer whose programming abilities were far from being able to write such a successful micro-computer OS. CP/M, Q-DOS, MS-DOS were due to the genius of Gary Kildall and no one else. And Gary got shafted. It's really immaterial whether or not Mr. Patterson was a "nincompoop", what matters, from a historical standpoint is....he was the man who indeed generated the code that in fact became Q-DOS, which, by purchase, became MS-DOS. Now, whether or not we can agree (which frankly I'm not competent to argue, and it would appear...neither are you) that Mr. Patterson was in fact capable of creating "Q-DOS", it would appear that history has carved his stone quite adequately...and he was indeed the man who the contract between the then nascent Microsoft and Mr. Patterson, was in fact written. (I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that several attorneys and multiple judges were adequately served to determine who in fact not only Mr. Patterson was, but more importantly....that he was in fact the architect of the now debated and your argued MS-DOS). Tim Paterson did not have the right to modify CP/M. (Of course not...he had nothing to do with it whatsoever, CP/M was manufactured and engineered by Gary Kildall as you have so many times accurately suggested and it was neither "Q-DOS" or the later {argued, innacurately by you} "MS-DOS). Whatever Tim Paterson did for Seattle Computer Products belonged to Seattle Computer Products, not Tim Paterson, because that is the way American law works. What you do for a company as a salaried employee of that company belongs to the company not you. Of course. Naturally (see below). So Tim Paterson selling Q-DOS to Bill Gates would be like me selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. Tim Paterson did not own Q-DOS and neither did Seattle Computer Products (see above and below). Dozens of top programers testified for Gary Kildall that Q-DOS was simply an illegal clone of CP/M (no argument). That Tim Paterson copied CP/M code line for line (also no argument). Please explain to everyone here (accurately please) how Tim Pattersons decision to abscond with code from Gary Kildall and then sell it to Microsoft makes Microsoft the big bad corporate bully? (I'm missing something here). When asked to explain the purpose of various lines of code in Q-DOS Tim Paterson could not do it, and Gary Kildall could. In the end, Tim Paterson admitted he had simply copied CP/M line for line. (See above). > Tim sold it for a reasonable price which included in his > signed contract a statement that clarified with no hesitation > whatsoever that "Microsoft would sell this software to various > companies, including but not limited to International Business > Machines" (IBM), and he later sued for several million dollars > for breach...and won (oddly). You don't know what you are talking about. Tim Paterson did not own Q-DOS (You're correct, Seattle Computer Products did, which Tim Patterson was the legal liason for). Bill Gates knew that (of course he did, which is why the legal documents named "Seattle Computer Products" as the legal entity, with Tim Patterson as the legal authority to sign for as the appropriate entity), that is why he also paid Seattle Computer Products for Q-DOS (I believe I already said that). Gates also knew Seattle Products didn't own Q-DOS (in fact, they did, which is why the legal documents state as such), but he figured that by this point he had so complicated the picture, that stupid Americans would not be able to figure out what happened, and by the time they did, it would be too late. Well, "Stupid ..." is aptly put. I'm afraid I can only suggest where that moniker would be best suited. [Mod Note: font size reduced]

SirKenin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 6:39:54 PM)
Sinergy: I have Vista. It does not allow anything to execute without your permission. Actually by default you are logged into a "limited account" of sorts so that it makes it difficult for any rogue software to install itself. It is really nice.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:13:03 PM)
Dear LTRsubNW: You can believe what you want. If anyone else is interested I can direct you to countless places on the Web which tell the story how Tim Paterson and Bill Gates stole their OS from Gary Kildall. Gary Kildall's lawsuit can also be found online. In his lawsuit Gary Kildall details how it can be proven that Tim Paterson's Q-DOS is really CP/M, and how no progammer that has examined the code for both products disputes this. Tim Paterson acknowleged that he copied CP/M line for line, and merely adapted CP/M to run on the Intel's 8088 chip. Everything I wrote can be verified by doing a Google search.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:19:12 PM)
Check out the following links to see that LTRsubNW does not know what he is talking about, and that everything I wrote is true. http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/reach/435/kildall.htm http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/atari/museum/kildall.html

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:27:15 PM)
Last Updated February 13, 2001 Kudos for Kildall Looked in mail last night..found Columns and when I saw the cover I wondered if (by any chance) you had included my brother in your list. Was I happy when I saw his name and picture in the listing! Gary Kildall deserves a lot more credit than he gets for being the "father of the PC" as we know it today. As almost no one knows, Bill Gates would not (by any stretch of the imagination) be the billionaire he is. That distinction would belong to Gary who invented CPM—the operating system that runs all of our computers even today. Gates bought CPM's clone (from Seattle Computer, who never even paid Gary for it) for a mere $50K and changed its name. Underneath the "Windows" platform we are all so familiar with is CPM DOS (now called MSDOS). Anyway its a long, involved story—one that will never likely surface to show the true genius behind every PC sitting on our desks/offices. I'm so glad the Alumni Association finally gave credit where it is due. Thank you, thank you!! Pat Kildall Guberlet, '79, Seat

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:32:02 PM)
www.forbes.com/archive/forbes/1997/0707/6001336a.html www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm www.fortunecity.com/marina/reach/435/kildall.htm www.fortunecity.com/marina/reach/435/micro.htm

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:41:03 PM)
dfarq.homeip.net/article/1197 http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index10.htm Here is a list of corporations who sued Microsoft and won. It shows that Bill Gates stole just about everything that people attribute to him. Bill Gates and Microsoft lost just about every legal case filed against them, but in each case the litigants settled for less than their just due because American legal system favors the party with the most money, and the party with the money. The players- Gary Kidall of Digital Research, Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer & Ray Noorda from Novell founded Caldera. (It is complicated) Appears like Microsoft lost all the lawsuits, paid huge damages, but won MS-DOS. Appears like Gary Kidall wrote the original DOS, Tim Patterson cloned it? (and went to work for Microsoft a few months later) and Ray Noorda sued Microsoft over anti-competitive practices allowing him to continue a clone of MS-DOS (DR-DOS) under a former lawsuit. 1973 "Gary Kildall developed CP/M, the first standard operating system for microcomputers. Appears Gary Kidall of Digital Research (appears to be a one man company) is the real originator of DOS. Died in 1994 See Gary Kildall Legacy 1973 Gary Kildall of Digital Research writes an Operating System in PL/M language. CP/M (Control Program/Monitor) Note - See Digital Research for more on Gary Kidall . 1980 Quote: "MS-DOS was an imperfect copy of another operating system. CP/M by Digital Research. MS-DOS was essentially a clone of Digital Research CP/M version 1.4 ported to the Intel 8086/8 . SOC DOS (aka QDOS = "quick and dirty operating system") as it was initially called was written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, a maker of an 8086 processor board for S-100 machines. Quote: "The new operating system was purchased by Microsoft and licensed to IBM when Digital Research refused to sell all rights to CP/M-86 for a song. Microsoft and IBM subsequently managed to get Digital Research to drop its threat of a lawsuit about MS-DOS by agreeing to offer CP/M-86 as an alternative to IBM PC DOS and leave the choice to the customers. What they didn't tell Digital Research was that they were going to charge $240 for Digital Research product but only $40 for Microsoft's. 1980 The Seattle Computer DOS (Tim Patterson) SC-DOS was a clone of Kildall's CP/M 86??? (Tim Patterson went to work for Microsoft shortly after) 1980 Microsoft (over QDOS) sued by Seattle Computer Products (out of court settlement). 1981 Kildall of Digital Research called MS-DOS a rip off and that it contained some CP/M code. 1982 Gary Kildall sued Microsoft in 1982 over DOS and won, and right to clone MS-DOS. 1982 DOS -"Digital Research sued Microsoft & IBM (over copyright infringement) Quote: "Gary Kildall sat down at a fresh IBM PC, typed a few keystrokes & poped up a Digital Research copyright notice. This impressed the Judge. Digital Research won the case, monetary damages, and the right to clone MS-DOS. Microsoft won a gag order to make sure the public never heard about this case." 1982 Another story - Kidall (DR) considered suing Microsoft for copying all the CP/M system calls, program structure, and user interface. However Kidall (DR) knew it would also have to sue IBM. DR did not have the resources. Note: Dvorak 1996 "a very early copy of MS-DOS that contained an easter egg that printed Gary Kildall's name. CP/M had the same easter egg." See this link how Microsoft beat Gary Kidall to IBM. 1987 - Digital Research exercised its right to clone MS-DOS won by lawsuit (see 1982) and released DR-DOS The success of DR DOS led to Novell acquiring Digital Research [Mod Note: multiple images removed]

gooddogbenji -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:44:08 PM)
Wow. WTH is easier to set off than a cat with a rocket up its ass! Yours, benji

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:48:08 PM)
1987 - Digital Research exercised its right to clone MS-DOS won by lawsuit (see 1982) and released DR-DOS The success of DR DOS led to Novell acquiring Digital Research *1994 - Stacs Electronics sued Microsoft for patent infringement* over DOS 6.0 and won $83 million. 1996 - Quote: Ray Noorda (of Novell) founded Caldera, which bought the rights to Novell's legacy operating systems from its Digital Research acquisition. Caldera then filed a lawsuit against Microsoft over its anti-competitive practices against Digital Research. Caldera's lawyers and their witness documented ample evidence of the anti-competitive practices and dirty tricks that Microsoft had used to drive its competitor out of the market. At the beginning of 2000 the lawsuit was settled out of court in return for Microsoft paying a reported US$150-200 million to Caldera. Thus DR DOS, the product that I had helped develop, cost Microsoft dearly, both while DR DOS was a healthy challenge to Microsoft's virtual operating system monopoly and after Bill Gates had considered it dead and buried. 1996 - See SCO pulps Caldera-MS trial archives - Quote:** The Caldera antitrust lawsuit included some of the most damning evidence of Microsoft misconduct; breakware, black propaganda, all was there, the potential embarrassment being such that there was good reason for Microsoft to settle, then try to pretend it never happened. Now, however, maybe it didn't ever happen - because the evidence is being pulped. 1996 - Caldera even with winning the lawsuit, did not stand a chance with Microsoft. In 1996 Microsoft had 20,561 employee's, $8,671,000,000 in revenues and 96,87% of the computer market. And Bill Gates was worth $18.5 billion dollars. The operating system MS-DOS, brought computing to the masses (and Microsoft made it the OS standard), has a long lawsuit history? It appears that Gary Kidall was the key figure in Microsoft history. It all started with Gary Kidall. Tim Patterson cloned Kidall's OS??? (went to work for microsoft) and Microsoft sold it to IBM as PC-DOS and the clone makers as MS-DOS. In brief: The LAWSUITS over MS-DOS (It's complicated) Its complicated Gary Kidall (Digital Research) wrote an Operating System called CP/M, Tim Patterson (of Seattle Computer makes a clone of CP/M?? (called QDOS). Seattle computer sells it to Microsoft, who leases it out to IBM and the clone makers. Novell bought Digital Research about 1987. Then Ray Noorda of Novell formed a new company called Caldera which included Gary Kidall's original OS. They all sued Microsoft and Microsoft lost each time, but Microsoft kept DOS (the money maker) See lawsuits. Digital Research & Caldera, by court decision was able to clone DOS and they came out with DR DOS. Another good story. But Caldera never had a chance against Microsoft in 1996. In 1996 Microsoft had 20,561 employee's, $8,671,000,000 in revenues and 96,87% of the computer market. And Bill Gates was worth $18.5 billion dollars. In 1994 Stacs Electronics sued Microsoft for patent infringement over DOS 6.0 and won $83 million. See IBM & DOS, early DOS, OS/2 and Windows development (from IBM's perspective)) -------------------------------------------------------- 4.) 1989 - DEC vs MICROSOFT This was over VMS and Windows NT - Microsoft was accused of stealing the code of VMS. LINK-http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_microsoft_windows.html DIGITAL (DEC) LAWSUIT Quote: "Meanwhile Microsoft continued to develop Windows NT. Microsoft hired Dave Cutler, one of the chief architects of VMS at Digital Equipment Corporation (later purchased by Compaq, now part of Hewlett-Packard) to develop NT into a more capable operating system. Cutler had been developing a follow-on to VMS at DEC called Mica, and when DEC dropped the project he brought the expertise and some engineers with him to Microsoft. DEC also believed he brought Mica's code to Microsoft and sued. Microsoft eventually paid $150 million US and agreed to support DEC's Alpha CPU chip in NT [Mod Note: image removed]

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 9:57:22 PM)
Yup, everyone knows Bill Gates stole MS-DOS from Gary Kildall except the 4 billion people who edit Wikipedia and LTRsubNW who apparently doubts that 1 + 1 = 2

Yang4yin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 10:41:36 PM)
I worked in technical support as an employee of Microsoft for over 10-years. I saw first-hand some of the lack of concern for poorly written program code. A lot of that had to do with generating new income for the corporation. No new products = no new income. For a while, the theory was that a new version of an existing product had to be made available every 18-months, and that put a lot of pressure on the programmers. I was there when other companies were bought so that Microsoft could get its name on a product and get into a particular segment. FrontPage is one that comes to mind. I was there when Internet Explorer first came out. It was awful! I ran Netscape at work until I got caught and was forced to change. I saw customer support go from always free to free for the first 90-days, to free for the first 2 calls, to selling annual contracts to companies. I also saw thousands of Microsoft customer support jobs in the USA go first to contract workers, and then outsourced to companies in the US, and then to companies in Canada, and finally to companies in India. However, during the time I was there, the only thing we were told to tell DR-DOS customers was that it was not a Microsoft product, and for support of DR-DOS itself, they needed to call Digital Research. While I was in Windows support, we did whatever was necessary to get Windows 3.1 to run with DR-DOS. (I didn't take calls for earlier versions of Windows, so can't say anything to that.) When I later supported Word for Windows, I got lots of calls from former WordPerfect users who had been forced to switch due to their employers. Because the early versions of WordPerfect were not WYSIWYG, and Word for Windows was/is, they were 2 totally different products. But, since the people were used to WP and its terminology, and not familiar with Word and its terminology, they hated Word. As more and more companies made the switch, a group of Word support techs were trained in WP, and Microsoft setup a special queue for former WP users to ease the transition. Was WP better? Maybe, maybe not. It was definitely different. However, it did not improve. As WP lost market share, it was sold (passed around is more like it) to other companies that really ruined it. As to what Bill Gates did for, or not for the PC, stop and look at the computers that will run Windows versus Apple's Macintosh OS. Actually, look at Apple's business practices for a moment. Except for a very few years, Apple has always been the manufacturer of the Apple and Macintosh computers, as well as the Operating System. (Sounds like a monopoly to me.) As a result, the price of those computers has remained high in comparison to a Windows-based computer, which Microsoft has never manufactured). Apple gets to brag about all the things it can do "out of the box," and yet the federal government sued Microsoft (in part) for adding free applications to its OS. Wait until Windows Vista is released - you'll really see this in action! There will be several versions available, from a bare bones-no frills version that won't have anything other than the OS itself, to the "ultimate bundle" with all the things that used to be included at no cost. Something that's often forgotten is the fact that during the 1990s when Apple fell on hard times, Microsoft bailed them out to keep the company alive. Part of the reason was because Microsoft Office for Macintosh was so popular, and they didn't want to lose that income, but even so, if Microsoft hadn't rescued Apple, there might be no Apple today. As to the lawsuits, I think some were legitimate. Some were not. However, Microsoft has a budget just for handling lawsuits and it will fight anything and everything that's thrown at it. Companies get some monetary compensation when they win, and they usually do. Governments? Well, the US Department of Justice wasted an awful lot of our taxpayer dollars during the lawsuit against Microsoft. The initial results were laughable. And what you'll see in Windows Vista will probably make you mad since you'll have to pay for some of the things that used to be free. In Europe, Microsoft is fighting a very expensive battle! A question for you... Do you really think that Microsoft should make the Windows code open source? Do you think that is going to make it possible for Microsoft to offer support when something goes wrong or some peripheral doesn't work as expected? How can the Microsoft support techs know what was modified? They can't. "Sorry, but you don't have a genuine version of Microsoft Windows and as a result, I can't help you." Then what do you do? Call the manufacturer of your printer (if that's the problem). You'll probably hear something like, "I'm sorry, but it works with Microsoft Windows, but you have a modified version and we don't support that." For what it's worth, Bill Gates is no longer the CEO of Microsoft. The guy you want to hate is Steve Balmer. He's been in charge of the business for at least 3 years. On a side note... I had to have brain surgery during the time I was working at Microsoft. Thanks to the excellent health coverage the company provided to me at no charge, I did not have to pay a penny towards the thousands and thousands of dollars charged by the doctors, hospitals, laboratories, rehabilitation center, etc. It's hard to hate anybody for taking care of you like that.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 11:06:47 PM)
The reason Apple fell on hard times was Bill Gates stole their Interface. Apple sued and won. Apple recovered after Gates paid them off. Microsoft has has been sued by dozens of software companies for stealing their product, and each time Microsoft has lost. I have never owned an Apple Computer for a variety of reasons. The main reason is most software is written for Microsoft, and most hardware is made for computers that run Microsoft's OS. I know both Word and Word Perfect, and Word Perfect is a 100 times better program. MS Word like everything else Gates has created is a hydra. I don't hate Bill Gates. I just think he is a crook who has seriously hurt the development of computers, and used his position to destroy better computer applications the same way VHS conquered Beta-Max, only less ethically. Bill Gates sabatoge of DR-DOS is preserved in his personal e-mails to top employees. If you were to read those emails as I have done, you would get a picture of a man who is mean-spirited, very petty, and sees business like Hitler saw war. When it comes to business Gates had little ethics. He double-dealed everyone. Some people may applaud his double-dealing and say that just proves how smart he is, but I say that just shows how ruthless and cunning he is. He is closer to Al Capone than he is to George Soros or other US tycoons. George Soros, Steve Jobs, Lee Iococa made made the old fashioned way, they earned it.

SirKenin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 11:16:38 PM)
Bill Gates DID NOT steal anything from Apple. Holy shit. Talk about a one trick pony. And for what it is worth, I have used both Word and Word Perfect and Word Perfect is a buggy piece of shit. Ever since Corel got their hands on it, they trashed it just like they do everything else. Even Corel Draw is a buggy piece of shit, and I have several versions of that too. Not to mention that two of My clients run printing presses so I have to support the piece of crap. Now that I think about it... You whine and bitch like you know everything. I would like to see you pull off what Microsoft has done. Not that I am in love with them or anything, but you show Me any other company in the world who can release so many products, so many updates, support such a huge variety of hardware and offer the technical support they do in so many countries. There is not one company in the entire world that can actually pull that off besides Microsoft. Not one.

Yang4yin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 11:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip The reason Apple fell on hard times was Bill Gates stole their Interface. Apple sued and won. Apple recovered after Gates paid them off. Uhhhh... no... The interface was not stolen from Apple. It was copied from XeroxPARC's work on the GUI interface. quote: I know both Word and Word Perfect, and Word Perfect is a 100 times better program. Yeah? Which versions are you comparing? quote: I don't hate Bill Gates. I just think he is a crook who has seriously hurt the development of computers... A crook, maybe. But Microsoft has allowed lots of other companies to make products that work with Windows (and do a better job than what MS offers). And lots of computers have been produced to take advantage of what Windows can do, keeping the prices down. quote: Bill Gates sabatoge of DR-DOS is preserved in his personal e-mails to top employees. If you were to read those emails as I have done, you would get a picture of a man who is mean-spirited, very petty, and sees business like Hitler saw war. How did you get copies of his personal emails? I met Bill Gates in his pre-married life days. He wasn't the most pleasant person to be around. He was arrogant and bragged about how he dominated the topic of discussion at meetings of various corporation heads. He believed that his money meant he was in charge. Nowadays, he's more interested in giving to health organizations worldwide and supporting education in the US. quote: ... Steve Jobs... made made the old fashioned way... earned it. Apparently you aren't aware of Steve Wozniak's part in creating the Apple computer company, or what a ruthless SOB Steve Jobs is.

Yang4yin -> RE: Bill Gates did nothing for PCs (10/7/2006 11:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee BTW, i also agree with You about the results of the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft. i am somewhat familiar with that area of law, and IMO, the proper remedy was, among other things, the disassemblage of the Microsoft Corp into baby corps, unrelated to one another. Like what happened to AT&T? All that would've done would force prices up on software.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.203125