[rbanffy]

> By commoditizing PCs by licensing to Compaq

No. Compaq, like many other PC makers of the time, made PCs that were compatible with IBM's because they reverse engineered the BIOS. BTW, the first company to do it was Columbia Data Products. Microsoft only licensed an OS, much like Digital Research licensed CP/M, to every computer manufacturer that wanted to distribute it. Their advantage was that PC-DOS was bundled with every PC and that was enough to create critical mass.

On the other hand, the dominance of the PC ecosystem also prevented other architectures from gaining a significant foothold and restricted the kind of computers people could get. If you enjoyed an inferior hardware standard encumbered by processors with convoluted instruction sets, having to set jumpers on expansion boards to resolve hardware conflicts and things like destroying monitor power supplies by setting wrong timings on the CRTC (6854 on MDA), you can thank them for that. I had an Apple II clone (yes, 1977 technology) and never had to set jumpers on an expansion board until I moved to a PC clone in the late 80's.

> leading to lower prices and massive uptake of PCs

I'd credit Commodore for that

> I've usually found it unproductive to argue facts with people with such an affliction.

I don't know why we bother.

[recoiledsnake]

>Microsoft only licensed an OS, much like Digital Research licensed CP/M, to every computer manufacturer that wanted to distribute it

You say "only" as if the OS weren't a critical part of running a computer and that Microsoft specially included a clause in their agreement with IBM to be able to license to other manufacturers.

>Their advantage was that PC-DOS was bundled with every PC and that was enough to create critical mass.

You say as if that was a chance happening and not a deliberate and very insightful strategy to acquire that advantage compared to, say Apple. Just like how Google made Android free and open to counter Apple.

>I had an Apple II clone (yes, 1977 technology) and never had to set jumpers on an expansion board until I moved to a PC clone in the late 80's.

That's a nice comparison. If Apple had won instead of Microsoft, computer uptake would've been hampered by higher prices because of the lack of commoditization, having only a single vendor that's known to charge exorbitant margins. If you think Apple computers were expensive, imagine what their prices would've been without competition from PCs.

I'd take much cheaper prices and mutiple PC vendors that encouraged PC adoption in the third world over not having to set a few jumpers. Not to mention that Linux was first developed on x86 machines.

[rbanffy]

> You say "only" as if the OS weren't a critical part of running a computer

An OS is a critical piece of software, but the PC was also offered with CP/M-86 (IIRC, for a price DR considered suicidal)

> You say as if that was a chance happening and not a deliberate and very insightful strategy

Demanding non-exclusive contract was, in fact, brilliant. That single move turned Microsoft from a small niche software company to the powerhouse it was in the 90's. Had IBM said "no" (as they should), Bill Gates would still be filthy rich and a lot more popular.

> If Apple had won instead of Microsoft (...) having only a single vendor that's known to charge exorbitant margins.

I believe Commodore would have taken care of that. Or Atari. Or VTech, maybe Franklin. Or anyone else. Apple never had the dominance PC cloners have.

[tanzam75]

Suppose that there was no Microsoft. Who would have taken its place? DR was charing $240 for CP/M 86 -- the same amount it charged for CP/M on other platforms. At the same time, Microsoft was charging $40 for DOS. The other option on the IBM PC was UCSD p-system, which was fatally crippled by the overhead of the interpretation layer -- we didn't yet have JIT.

Or perhaps you think that a system not backed by IBM would have found success. In other words, multiple companies duking it out with incompatible OSes. How often does that work out?

I submit that the most likely scenario would've been a duopoly -- Apple with the home and education market, IBM with the business market.

[rbanffy]

> Suppose that there was no Microsoft. Who would have taken its place?

Why would a single company take its place?

> DR was charing $240 for CP/M 86 -- the same amount it charged for CP/M on other platforms.

I remember the price was for the IBM-PC bundle and that DR was uncomfortable with it. I also remember CP/M came bundled with many Z-80-based computers of the time - there was not enough hardware standardization to allow shrink-wrapped cross-platform operating systems to exist.

> The other option on the IBM PC was UCSD p-system, which was fatally crippled by the overhead of the interpretation layer

UCSD p-system was cross-platform, at least.

> -- we didn't yet have JIT.

Or maybe we would have one by the late 80's

> multiple companies duking it out with incompatible OSes. How often does that work out?

We don't have enough data to make any accurate predictions. I suppose we may have arrived at a set of basic compatible APIs, much like POSIX, that allowed software designed for it to run on many different computers.

> I submit that the most likely scenario would've been a duopoly -- Apple with the home and education market, IBM with the business market.

And Commodore and Atari sharing the home/gaming market in the US, Acorn and Sinclair in the UK. Commodore would possibly own TV and special effects. 68K (or ARM) based 32-bit boxes would be considered basic home machines and the average person would have access to preemptive multitasking in the mid 80's.

[yuhong]

Yea, my favorite topic is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-...