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

[Train]

Linux is a good OS, and its Free, cant beat the price, so is Microsoft going to die? i dont think so.

And Netscape needs to roll with the punches, they cant wine about yesterdays problems, MS made a browser, its free, "Hey you cant give yours away!, ours is free too, noo!!!!"

Then MS puts IE in windows, oh no, poor netscape should have realized browsers were going to be all anyone uses anymore, and that they will become an integral part of any OS. before you know it, we wont have OS's, just browsers. Netscape didnt see this, MS did, and thats why MS tore them a new one.

 

[IronMike]

Once you get people started on, trained and using a particular operating system or program there is hell to pay in trying to make a switch, just ask any organization that has tried it. What Microsoft has accomplished has been a major sales coup, and they have captured people's mind set.
Give me a break, DOS and Windows as the major operating system for the 10+ years?!

 

[dude]

I think if billy wasn't born, we'd all have eyes on the back of our heads, an extra arm, and 3 more feet.

And evolution moves on...

 

[Optimus]

All the computers would be Macs.
The world would have been a paradise. Computer would be our friends - now at a level where AI was able to talk, feel, and love. Thanks to giant supercomputers and robots, all manual and dangerous labor wouldn't require human workers. We would be free to think, debate, and frolic in giant Virtual Reality worlds beyond our imagination. Mars would be colonized, as would the moon.
War would only be read about in history books... lambs would lie down beside lions.
The Cubs would have won thier 5th consecutive World Series. President Sarah Michelle Gellar's only job would be to look good on the holo-vid TV, as all the decisions were left to the super-computer Apple Mark 8,000,000s.

We would fly in hovercars and eat anything we wanted from food synthesizer machines.
Old age would start at 400.
Disease would mean a slight headache, usually caused by the consumption of excessive free alcohol.

Giant "Party Centers" would run 24/7 to entertain and amuse. Men would all be shaped like a young Arnold, women like Laetitia Casta.

Love would be real love, cars would be fast and polution-free, and the world would be whole again.


...



Then one morning the entire planet would boot up to an "unhappy face", and civilization would collapse.

 

[BCYL]

Browers became a "feature" in OS not because MS made it that way, but the internet made it so. Many Linux distros comes with netscape or other browser too, the only difference is MS did it first...

My point is, you can't blame a company for adding new features and improving their products as the world's demands changes...

 

[Train]

The question should be "Where would we be without IBM" without IBM, bill gates would be a nobody, and i think without Bill Gates, we would be in the same place we are now, IBM was gonna give that first OS contract to SOMEONE, and whoever it was, they were gonna be huge. It just happened to be Billy Boy

 

[chemos]

<< My point is, you can't blame a company for adding new features and improving their products as the world's demands changes... >>



Yes, you can. And the DoJ did, and took them to court for it. And the court said, &quot;yeah, they didn't play fair. Guilty.&quot;

I just love how you toss it all wayside saying Netscape should've just planned differently. Well, I suppose if they had had the 10+ years MS did, they could've come up with their own OS. The real issue is that Netscape -was- the most popular browser before Windows 95 came out. Therein lies the problem.

Anyhow, I could bother arguing this farther, and even bringing in how MS forced the other dos' out of the market with windows 3.1. But I won't. The courts have obviously ruled in the DoJ's favor and I probably won't change your mind about MS being a persecuted, innocent software company. *shrugs*

 

[stonythug]

Well let me start out by saying that I hate microsoft. I'm not trying to push that on anyone, but I think you might as well know my bias before I start. That being said, I think we are much farther along now with computing than we would have been without Microsoft. I think they are a huge reason for the meteoric rise in personal computing that has taken place in the last decade. Personal computers wouldn't be as popular as they are now, without something as easy as Windows. So looking backwards, it seems as if MS was a huge plus. It is my belief that without MS we wouldn't be where we are today, I don't believe however that without MS we never would have gotten here. I think without MS and windows the personal computing revolution would have happened, it just would have taken longer. Eventually someone would have written a user friendly version of UNIX that installs easily and has a nice interface. That could still be done and when and if it is I think UNIX will be a much more viable OS for the public. No one has though, because no one would use it. Everyone uses windows now so there's not really any demand for a personal user version. UNIX has still flourished because it is better than windows when it comes to reliability and flexibility, so the people who need those things they look there rather than MS. Personal users prefer ease of setup and lots of support rather than reliability or flexibility so they choose MS. I think it sucks that we are now on the path to take whatever MS decides to put out. They control us and what we have on our computer screens. Windows is really a $hitty operating system. I'm a CS major and I've taken operating system theory classes. After studying what an operating system can and should do, I realize what a big pile of crap MS has sold to everyone. It crashes often, you have no control, and you can make no improvements. None of my professors will even discuss windows in classes because they think it is so terrible and none of them use it. If anyone is a good judge of OS'es I would say it's a professor of OS theory. Now we've reached a point where no company will ever have the research and developement dollars of microsoft so even when we do switch to a new chip architecture and all software must be rewritten, it will be microsoft who has the money to write a new user friendly OS quickly and you can guarantee they will do anything they can to crush any competition that might arise. If you're happy with the unreliability, unconfigurability, and SLOWNESS of windows, it's only because you don't know what you're missing. We could do so much better than windows, but do to Microsofts power we probably never will.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Windows IS NOT A MONOPOLY!!

 

[BowDown]

Ha... Windows is not a monopoly. Do you believe the earth is flat too?

You can play the game that &quot;there are other OS's and other Office Applications out there&quot;, but most to all consumers don't want to spend any more money then they paid for the system... and what software comes with the system? It doesn't even give any competition a chance.

I love to use Linux, I find it's a solid OS that's not bloated with useless included software (on my PC).

Also on the flip side you can plead that Mac OS is a monopoly too... but you don't see MS making it's own line of computers either?!? If I want MS off my Mac I can just drag it to the trash and I'm clenzed from the MS $hit.

 

[nd]

<< Browers [sic] became a &quot;feature&quot; in OS not because MS made it that way, but the internet made it so. Many Linux distros comes with netscape or other browser too, the only difference is MS did it first... >>


BAHAHAHAHAA... you don't honestly believe this, do you? First of all, Microsoft didn't do this first. Not even CLOSE. Various UNIX distros (and other OS's) have been shipped with web browsers (whether it be Netscape, Lynx, Mosaic, Athena, etc) long before Microsoft even had Internet Explorer. And you know what? You could still uninstall the browser if you didn't want it.

 

[jtshaw]

Just a comment...people have tried the having programs run independant of the OS thing...it really shuts out the ability to run multiple programs at the same time unless you make the programs way more complex then they need to be. It is good to have one central control system that handles memeory requests and processor management.

 

[compuwiz1]

MS is the reason so many people are able to own and use computers. (Gotta give credit where credit is due)
Conversely, some people are never happy and always have to have something to bitch and whine about, so I can see where MS becomes a target for that, as well.

 

[chemos]

Umm I don't think the question here is &quot;did MS make a difference?&quot;

But rather &quot;would another company (or other companies) have made a bigger difference? esp. with competition?&quot;

 

[SirFshAlot]

my question is; whether you think Gates was a wonderboy or not; at this point, is computer technology(mainly apps and games) moving forward at a good pace, or is it too controlled by Windows?