[mfukar]

I don't really see how one could speak about wide adoption of the personal computer and not count Microsoft in the equation. The "diverse", as other fellow HNers have kindly put it, computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike. Even if it weren't needed, since Z80, 6502, Motorola's 68000 as well as the variants of CP/M were entering oblivion, Microsoft slowly helped change that gradually, and slowly came to dominance with Windows (the reasons are obvious now, with hindsight).

Yet how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me. Maybe a comparison with GEOS is in line..

[rbanffy]

> The "diverse" (...) computing environment of Atari, Apple, IBM et al was a complete nightmare for developer and user alike

I don't think so. You had a handful of self-sufficient ecosystems to work in. Apart from having only one software ecosystem, I can't see why you may think we are better off now.

> how one may deny that Gates brought the PC to the masses with knowledge of the above are beyond me

Since it's your own assessment of your own shortcomings, I assume you must be right.

[mfukar]

It's not my assessment, I just happen to agree with it. You disagreed with it yet came to the same conclusion (Microsoft's dominance over desktop). I simply miss the logical step in that process.

PS. Also, there are plenty of "digital ecosystems" for us to play with, even today. Billions over billions of ad hoc, embedded, portable, desktop, mainframe and all the other platforms in between. Thankfully some unification now exists (where it matters).