| ▲ | mmooss 20 hours ago |
| How were they "pure bread hackers"? Was Gates especially proficient with code? I've never heard that. From what I read, they were the enemies of hackers. This really seems like looking back with rose-colored glasses. My understanding of Microsoft's success was it came from marketplace maneuvers, many ranging from unethical to illegal, not from quality or innovative hacking. Compare Windows with any contemporaneous MacOS, for example. They took over the office productivity software market by illegally leveraging their Windows monopoly. Their initial and core success - getting DOS on IBM PCs, which led to the Windows monopoly - was simply leaping at a business opportunity, I think even before they began developing the product. Didn't they generate fake errors for Windows running on DR-DOS, or something like that, even though it ran fine? Do you mind that they tried to destroy and monopolize the open web (thank you Mozilla!)? |
|
| ▲ | einr 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| My understanding of Microsoft's success was it came from marketplace maneuvers, many ranging from unethical to illegal, not from quality or innovative hacking. Compare Windows with any contemporaneous MacOS, for example. So it's 1992, and OS/2 still isn't happening. But you can get a 386 at 16 or 25 MHz complete with maybe a 40 MB hard drive, color monitor, 256-color VGA, a couple megabytes of memory, and licenses for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 for $1000 or less. This will let you do a lot of computer things. If you want to run Mac OS, the very cheapest Macintosh you can get is the Mac Classic, and it costs $1695 for a 7 MHz 68000, a single floppy drive, no hard drive, and a 1-bit black and white display. This will enable you to do a lot fewer computer things, much more slowly. Macs were very expensive. Windows was good enough. It wasn't better, necessarily, but it wasn't strong-armed onto the market by shady maneuvers either -- at the time of Windows 3 and 95 it was genuinely good "product-market fit". Microsoft, from its earliest days, was good at leveraging mass-market hardware to deliver "good enough" software that worked for the majority of people. Of course they did shady stuff that increased their dominance, but Windows would have sold like hotcakes either way. Didn't they generate fake errors for Windows running on DR-DOS, or something like that, even though it ran fine? IIRC that code existed, but was commented out in the final build. |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was strong-armed because Gates used family connections to negotiate a preferential deal for DOS with IBM, and then forced PC manufacturers to bundle DOS and/or Windows. That was then leveraged into attempts to force Internet Explorer onto Internet users. Which was when the antitrust suit happened. Meanwhile IE and Windows were notorious for being terrible pieces of software. Windows was always horrifically buggy and crash prone - far behind even the most basic standards of professional reliability. 3.x was sort of usable but extremely simple, 9x was just horrific, and it wasn't until XP that it became almost reliable. Both IE and Windows were also a security disaster. Between the bugs and the security flaws Microsoft wasted countless person-centuries for its users. The one thing that MS did right was create a standard for PC software. That was the real value of Windows - not the awfulness of the product but the ecosystem around it, which created Visual Basic for beginner devs and Windows C++ classes for more experienced devs, and kick-started a good number of bedroom/small-scale startup businesses. For context, PCs at this time were also extremely expensive. The price of a Mac Classic got you a brain damaged 80286 and not much RAM. You had to spend $3k or more to get the newer 80386, and the 486/66 was just starting to become available. | | |
| ▲ | wvenable 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Windows was always horrifically buggy and crash prone At the time Mac OS didn't have memory protection -- Netscape would make your whole computer go BOOM at regular intervals. IE was even a hell of a lot more stable (and faster) than Netscape. I put a fresh copy of Redhat on the Internet in 90s and it was p0wned in 5 minutes. That's just the way things were. | |
| ▲ | jonathanlydall 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Meanwhile IE and Windows were notorious for being terrible pieces of software. My feeling of IE3 to IE6 (at its release time) is that (anti-competitive strategies aside), many (most?) average consumers would very likely choose IE over Netscape if they gave both a bit of a test drive. In 1996 (maybe 1997) I was 14/15 at the time and remember coming to the conclusion that IE3 ran much faster on Windows 95 compared to Netscape. It being (anticompetitively) free helped, but on the 100Mhz Pentiums with 8MB of RAM in our computer lab, you’d be a masochist to choose Netscape over it for random web browsing. IE4 was quite resource intensive, but because MS anticompetitively pre-loaded it on OS startup, it still started faster than Netscape. IE6 I found pleasant to use and it wasn’t until Firefox came out with tabs (Opera had them earlier, but you would often encounter websites it wouldn’t render properly, probably due to IE targeted design), that IE lost its sheen for me. Firefox was popular enough that developers started caring about standards compliant websites at which point IE started entering the “despised” category, but it may not have actually been displaced from its top spot were it not for Chrome. |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > IIRC that code existed, but was commented out in the final build. I've never heard that and IIRC, DR-DOS's owners sued successfully (or DoJ sued successfully). People certainly saw the errors. |
|
|
| ▲ | wvenable 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This really seems like looking back with rose-colored glasses. It works both ways. It's hard to look back at the time while ignoring all the paths the road has taken since then. Microsoft has always been company that is very good at building software compared their competition at the time. Their office productivity software, for example, is what made Windows popular (Windows is useless without apps). It's easy to give more weight to their flaws because, in many ways, their successes just seem obvious now. |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Microsoft has always been company that is very good at building software compared their competition at the time. I have never, ever heard that. (Edit: Name such software today.) > Their office productivity software, for example, is what made Windows popular (Windows is useless without apps). Completely false. Windows was already a monopoly, and the US government successfully sued Microsoft for using their Windows monopoly to leverage sales for Office. They told manufacturers: If you want Windows (which was essential) for the computer, you must pay for an Office license too. Where do you get this stuff or why are you posting it? | | |
| ▲ | wvenable 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Completely false. Windows was already a monopoly, and the US government successfully sued Microsoft for using their Windows monopoly to leverage sales for Office. The government lawsuit was specifically about Internet Explorer, not Office. At no time were manufacturers forced to pay for Office licenses. Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait. Where do you get your stuff and why are posting it? You do know that Office applications existed before Windows, right? Excel came out for Mac OS first. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lou1306 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Was Gates especially proficient with code? Well the article is obviously a biased source, but surely developing a) an ALTAIR emulator for PDP-10s (Allen) and b) a pretty much full-fledged BASIC interpreter that was exclusively tested on top of said emulator (Gates) in two months, in the 70s was not the kind of stuff an average coder would have done. |
|
| ▲ | thenthenthen 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This also how I read the story, they were ‘basically’ salesmen/marketing guys with good investor storytime. The hacking part was hacking together code on the plane before the meeting to rake in the cash? |
| |
| ▲ | everfrustrated 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Simply untrue. They were hacking in highschool for fun. Complete nerds.
They were _also_ ruthless business people. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most high school hackers and nerds don't become good professional coders. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And then all the folks that used to write M$ served the open Web in a plate to Google, now with the exception of Safari, what we have is ChromeOS, in browser, and being packaged in "native" apps. |
|
| ▲ | dboreham 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gates was obviously a proficient coder. I think you're experiencing a time compression phenomenon here: this was the mid 70s. Microsoft the big bad Microsoft that everyone knows about didn't appear until around the mid 90s. 20 years later, although from the perspective of 2025 those two eras seem pretty much adjacent. |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't mean proficient, I mean elite, exceptional, legendary. |
|
|
| ▲ | timewizard 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| BASIC was written as a team in Albuquerque. Altair had good reason to support their efforts. They then purchased DOS from Seattle Computer Products after they made a deal with IBM to sell it. To be fair Xerox gave away the office suite and the hardware to anyone who asked. |
| |
| ▲ | themadturk 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | BASIC was written as a team in Bellevue. Altair did nothing to support them until they traveled to Albuquerque and proved the code worked. | | |
| ▲ | timewizard 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A pretty limited version of it was written there the only purpose of which was to get the contract. The majority of actual BASIC development happened afterwards. In any case it was commentary on the "pure breed hackers" question so I was trying to highlight the commercial aspect of it. The work in Bellevue was only to achieve this outcome. |
|
|