Where would computer technology be if Bill Gates hadn't "monopolized" with Windows?

[SirFshAlot]

better or worse?

It's boggling to think how significant his influence has impacted the course of history.
Possibly we could be strides ahead in programs if the market allowed for broader competition.

What percentage of programs are available for non-Windows OS's?

 

[DefRef]

Gates stepped in where Apple fell down. Apple could've ruled the world if they hadn't made so many blunders at crucial moments.

 

[DAM]

i think its a very hard question to answer.

scenario 1:

bill gates never existed, then we would be bitching about steve jobs and the fact that apple has the monopoly in the pc world. we would more than likely have no OS X (which i hear is really good??? dont know much about this) also, perhaps the apple OS would not be what they are now, we more than likely not have imac or ibooks. however, i am sure that we would have games with a lot better graphics.



scenario 2:

bill gates existed and played really fair and by the good businessman rules, then this would be a perfect world, competition would be fierce and the true and only winners would be consumers. mac and pcs would talk to each other flawlessly, taking software to a new level. prices on software would drop and there would be this great move towards one "global" operating system that would be free of charge.





dam()

 

[SirFshAlot]

what if there wasn't a need for a global OS?

couldn't compatibility be more universal?

couldn't programs work independent of the OS?

 

[DaBoneHead]

Commodore should have won... that box was ahead of its time (amiga).

 

[BoberFett]

SirFshAlot

The case can be made that an OS is almost a utility. Someday it will probably be considered as such. Linux is sort of that way, a standard kernel with different distros focusing on different areas.

Imagine if every city you travelled to had different style electrical sockets. Or how about back when phone systems were propietary and you had to be on the same system as the person you wanted to talk to. A common OS is a good thing. The way MS bloats their OS and repackages it every year or two isn't, but that's another issue.

 

[chemos]

Boberfett>

You can have a standard without it being owned and controlled by a single company. That's sort of like saying "well, if there were more than one company making hard drives, they'd all have differently shaped connectors and would only go into certain systems."

I think the market could've had a lot of benefit in a more competitive environment. Imagine where OS' -could- be right now, if there had been two or three Microsofts competing.

Of course, this would've had the same effect on the software market.. ie Nutscrape would've still been bought out by AOL (or some other company).

It's difficult to say if things would've -really- been better or worse had MS not dominated and controlled the OS market for so long, but all my bets are on 'better'.

 

[StageLeft]

Honestly I believe MS as a whole has benefited us.

 

[SirFshAlot]

I agreee that it has benefited, but did it thwart the progress after the benefit?

 

[bigbootydaddy]

we would all be looking at a fruit box

 

[DAM]

i honestly think that thanks to MS the market "focused" on certain points. MS lead the way at their discretion, so instead of having many little MSs pulling in different directions we have one huge on dragging us there.





dam()

 

[SirFshAlot]

how's that different than , for example, the different video modes; direct3d vs. glide vs. whatever?

If Microsoft wasn't so huge, maybe the BEST platform would always weed the weaker ones out.

 

[Pretender]

We would all be using computers based on their fashion factor rather than by how fast they crack RC5 or run Quake III.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

THERE'S NO F'CKING MONOPOLY!

There are other OS's.
There are other web browsers.
There are other Office-style programs.

Good grief.

Microsoft gets screwed for being efficient, popular, and better than most (all?).

 

[BoberFett]

SirFshAlot

Define best system.

That's the problem. MS has done a relatively good job of building a system that excels in a lot of areas.

 

[PG]

Al Gore actually invented Windows. Bill stole it from him and brought it to market first. Al was then forced into a life of politics.










*(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[SirFshAlot]

FFM,
sorry if you're worked up by my reference, but that's what I am asking.

even though there are some alternatives; how many, or what percentage of the apps out there work for non-Windows, or non-Microsoft platforms?

Bober,
I don't know what the best is.
I wonder if there would be better though if Bill Gates hadn't been born.
Don't confuse this, or put words in my mouth. I use Windows in all it's glory and convenience.
I just wonder what progress we have sacrificed by it's worldwide success.

 

[Pretender]

I agree, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. That's like saying Coca-cola has a monopoly on the soft-drink industry, or McDonalds on the fast food industry. Being most popular doesn't make you evil, and just because RC Cola couldn't make a drink which didn't taste like urine doesn't mean Coca-cola should be stood infront of the DOJ firing squad.

 

[chemos]

<< THERE'S NO F'CKING MONOPOLY! >>



Sorry, I disagree. They own a good 90% of the OS market, and they've used this to their advantage time and again (ie drowning Nutscrape by making a free browser). Anyhow, obviously the Justice Dept. disagrees with you as well. And the courts.

 

[SirFshAlot]

I don't agree with the courts' involvement.

It's a consumers issue.

We use Microsoft because we benefit from it. It;s OUR choice.


I hope my hypothetical wasn't misconstrued as Gates bashing, because I support him against the courts.

He came up with a product that revolutionalized the personal computer industry, and he deserves all the wealth he has gained from it.

But it was so successful, IMO, that we may be losing on further advances.

 

[BCYL]

I disagrees that MS uses it's &quot;monopoly&quot; to gain an advantage over Netscape... I mean, they are just giving what the consumer wants and needs... Internet was becoming popular, so they had to provide additional features on their OS to the rising demand and keep up... Are they using their &quot;monopoly&quot; against Sygate by providing Windows ICS? I mean, no one is stopping you from buying Netscape, or using if you really like it...

As far as the court goes, I think that judge was really biased against MS... We'll see how the appeal goes...

Note: I am not a MS lover... I disagree with many things they do also, not trying to defend them in any way, just expressing what I think...

 

[chemos]

You're missing the point. Netscape was (at one point) a very marketable product. Web browsers were a -market-. Now they're a &quot;feature&quot;.

Also keep in mind that this isn't the first time MS has gotten in trouble with the DoJ. They were already slapped on the hand for these type of practices before (anyone remember PC DOS?) and they just keep doing it.

I sincerely hope that one day one of you MS sympathizers create a wonderful new program, just so MS can bundle it with their latest OS for $0.00 and send your investors home crying.

 

[Train]

<< I sincerely hope that one day one of you MS sympathizers create a wonderful new program, just so MS can bundle it with their latest OS for $0.00 and send your investors home crying. >>


what industry DOESNT this happen in? people go out of business all the time, wether they make good products or services or not, its a fact of capitalism. Its what keeps the economy going and its what keeps busineses on thier toes. To go and cry because your company went out of business becuase someone else beat your price/quality/service, is just stupid, you should have planned ahead, as good businesses do.

 

[chemos]

Oh, I see.. so Netscape should've just made an OS real quick. That would've saved them, right? Heh.

MS used its dominance in one market to gain power over (and devalue) another. That, by definition, is a monopoly. I'd explain it in simpler terms if they existed. The DoJ agrees, the court agrees, why can't you? Too many free 90-day trials, I guess.

Getting back on track, I personally think Windows is a pretty good product. However, the fact remains that in a decade+ other companies may have developed even better OS', esp given stiff competition. Who knows--maybe the OS' could even be compatible (ie run the same programs, etc.) I personally would've liked to see the end product of 10+ years of consumer OS development from IBM. And remember, competition helps keep prices down and quality/support up.

It could've ended up any number of ways, and it's difficult to guess how competition would've affected the market. But to say it's all moot and MS did a good job is completely closed-minded and silly.

 

[dcdomain]

hey... I'm pro-Microsoft...

if Bill wasn't around, we wouldn't have all these nice office programs working together so smoothly with the os...

oh right, it don't work smoothly anyway... yeah, whatever I still think MS has helped this sector a lot...