[curun1r]

The problem with this theory is that it disregards opportunity cost. This is what I don't get about everyone that lionizes Gates and everything he has done with his billions. Those billions came from depriving others. What would those at Netscape have done with the extra billions if they hadn't been forced to sell for a fraction of what they could have become? What would those at BeOS have done with their money if Microsoft's illegal OEM deals hadn't made them fail? What would all the businesses who were forced to spend money they didn't have to on Microsoft software have done with it if it hadn't flowed to Microsoft instead?

Microsoft's business practices, in my view, introduced greater inefficiency into the software and business ecosystem. They were a parasite that drained resources from every healthy business "organism" and no amount of philanthropy can make up for the opportunity cost paid for Gates to amass his wealth.

[Turing_Machine]

"Those billions came from depriving others."

How is giving people something they want "depriving" them?

I have little use for Microsoft software, but, you know, lots of people like it.

[curun1r]

Look up the "Windows Tax"...Microsoft earned billions forcing their software on people who most certainly did not want it. They used underhanded tactics like illegal bundling, abusive OEM contracts and intentionally obscured file formats to edge out better competition. Given how well documented their history is, I'm not sure how anyone can claim that Microsoft is just giving people what they want without being completely ignorant of what happened in the 90s and 00s.

[Turing_Machine]

Oh, please.

I remember that era well. There were always plenty of machines available that didn't pay the so-called "Windows tax". I know. I bought (and installed Linux on) many of them.

You know what? The number of people (again, including me) who didn't want Windows? That was a rounding error, dude.

[curun1r]

You're missing half of the Windows tax. It wasn't just charging for licenses that didn't end up getting used. It was also about forcing OEMs to choose between offering Windows and any other OS. It killed BeOS and had a chilling effect on anyone else building an OS that they intended to charge money for. That left Microsoft's only competition being Apple, who made their own hardware and didn't care about selling Windows machines and open source operating systems, which could never get UI right enough for mass adoption.

So yes, many of those machines sold with Windows pre-installed didn't have another operating system, but that doesn't mean that if Microsoft hadn't broken the law (those contracts they forced on OEMs were illegal) that people would have still chosen to buy those computers with Windows pre-installed. I consider people who were forced to use Windows because of the lack of alternatives killed by Microsoft's illegal business practices to be similarly paying the Windows tax.

Had BeOS gotten any reasonable market share, it would have quickly become a huge threat to Microsoft. It was miles ahead of Windows in terms of quality and some of its features are still, 20 years later, better than we have in current operating systems.

[Turing_Machine]

I'm already regretting getting into an argument with a zealot, but to be blunt: you are simply incorrect.

People (especially the kind of people who installed alternative operating systems) could, and did, assemble their own machines without paying any "Windows tax". At all.

Yes, some manufacturers cut a bulk deal to bundle Windows with complete systems.

No, that didn't make it impossible (or even particularly difficult) to avoid the so-called "Windows tax".

BeOS didn't even run on Intel hardware at first, btw. When I used BeOS (and I have used it, hands-on... have you?) it only ran on PPC machines. The port to Intel happened after the Return of Jobs and the decision to use NeXTSTEP (which became OS X) for new Macs. That's what killed BeOS, not the "Windows tax". The port to Intel was a late desperation move.

I'm tagging out now. I have better things to do than rehash a war that was over 25 years ago.

[curun1r]

> but to be blunt: you are simply incorrect.

OMG...are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? This isn't exactly controversial stuff I'm talking about. There was a lawsuit and Be is very much on the record about Microsoft's tactics.

The lawsuit: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microso...

Gassée's email: http://techrights.org/2008/08/19/oem-tactics-beos/

> ...assemble their own machines...

Do you even understand what OEM means? It has nothing to do with user-assembled machines. Yes, the minority of people who built their own systems could avoid the Windows tax. If you want to talk about a rounding error, that's basically the definition. We're talking the full systems that had Windows pre-installed. In order to not violate their OEM licenses with Microsoft, the only way those vendors could ship BoOS pre-installed was to dual boot with windows and give users absolutely no indication that BeOS was installed.

Get your facts straight before you start calling people names.

[trophycase]

Maybe, though I'd generally trust a smart guy to spend their money better than a bunch of random people who could be shopping at Wal-Mart and buying a Hummer for all we know...