MSDOS was very bad, it was a direct CP/M ripoff (even down to the source codes), it was the most handicapped and limited OS I've ever used.

MSDOS is at the core of Microsoft's success, they already were dominant within the market during this era, well before Windows 1.x became popular for home usage.

IMO the reasons for Microsoft's success.

1) IBM choose for MSDOS for their computers despite better options existed. IBM unlike Microsoft was a big name back then, especially amongst businesses. Better options like QNX existed, but may have been too expensive considering usage (mainly brainless on and off activity at factories and such).

IBM thought there wasn't a market for PC home usage, later on of course they were unhappy giving this might to Microsoft when the clones arrived. It was too late to launch their own operating system OS/2.

2) More user friendly and powerful systems like the Amiga, Atari ST, Acorn, Apple, etc existed. But they were more expensive and overkill for simple tasks.

3) More advanced versions of applications like Word Perfect were discontinued for the Amiga (Window controlled, Copy & Paste, multitasking enabled, etc). Instead Word Perfect as well as a non multi-tasking version of Lotus 1-2-3 were exclusively available for MSDOS, these were market leading applications at the time.

People wanting to continue their work at home would pick a MSDOS PC to run Lotus and/or Word Perfect. No matter more advanced software existed, other apps were not compatible with those used at work.

Not really, I think that MS will always be dominant and after this latest crapjob of a OS, Windows 7 will be a lot better, and that for future OS's, MS will put more thought into the finished product. As far as MS's games division goes, its a small part of MS so don't put TOO much into its lack of success.

dallas said: Not really, I think that MS will always be dominant and after this latest crapjob of a OS, Windows 7 will be a lot better, and that for future OS's, MS will put more thought into the finished product. As far as MS's games division goes, its a small part of MS so don't put TOO much into its lack of success.

You talk like Vista is the first crappy Windows OS. Windows 95 was very unstable and nobody I know would walk within 20ft of a PC with Windows ME installed.

 

Biased and unresearched.

I'd debunk it but it's way tooo long.

edit: just to add that MS is indeed facing strong challenges but for none of the reasons you stated.

edit2: holy ignorance batman... posts like this are why I loathe how the internet has become a window for unresearched opinion. At least back when books and magazines existed there were some people watching over things like this.

edit3: read mikeB's post, unlike most of the time he isn't full of it and nails some things you should be aware of before writing something like this.

I read the first sentence of that article, saw that he made a factual mistake, and didn't bother reading another sentence. Why would anyone read such a long article when the author couldn't even get the fact in his first sentece correct?

*Edit - I scanned down to the Apple part and read it and it's ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't make PC desktops so how were colorful PCs exploiting Microsoft? And the first sentence "Apple- not the one you would eat for breakfast," is also ridiculous, just how dumb does he think his audience is? I am trying to be nice to Sony fanboys but please stop posting such idiotic nonsense from one of your more idiotic members.

TruckOSaurus said: dallas said: Not really, I think that MS will always be dominant and after this latest crapjob of a OS, Windows 7 will be a lot better, and that for future OS's, MS will put more thought into the finished product. As far as MS's games division goes, its a small part of MS so don't put TOO much into its lack of success. You talk like Vista is the first crappy Windows OS. Windows 95 was very unstable and nobody I know would walk within 20ft of a PC with Windows ME installed.

 

Oh god no , don't bring back the memories.

Legend11 said: I read the first sentence of that article, saw that he made a factual mistake, and didn't bother reading another sentence. Why would anyone read such a long article when the author couldn't even get the fact in his first sentece correct? *Edit - I scanned down to the Apple part and read it and it's ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't make PC desktops so how were colorful PCs exploiting Microsoft? And the first sentence "Apple- not the one you would eat for breakfast," is also ridiculous, just how dumb does he think his audience is? I am trying to be nice to Sony fanboys but please stop posting such idiotic nonsense from your more idiotic members.

 

Windows 95: the birth of Windows!

Man, original post is soooo wrong.

Million said: TruckOSaurus said: dallas said: Not really, I think that MS will always be dominant and after this latest crapjob of a OS, Windows 7 will be a lot better, and that for future OS's, MS will put more thought into the finished product. As far as MS's games division goes, its a small part of MS so don't put TOO much into its lack of success. You talk like Vista is the first crappy Windows OS. Windows 95 was very unstable and nobody I know would walk within 20ft of a PC with Windows ME installed.     Oh god no , don't bring back the memories.

 

Windows ME was the worst OS ever!.  I personally liked Window 95, that an XP have been my favorites

MikeB said: To me, it is all very straight forward. Whilst PC's were a great machine to own, until Microsoft came along, they were not user friendly to the majority of the users. Microsoft allowed people to easily access PC's to do regular work as well as more complex. MSDOS was very bad, it was a direct CP/M rippoff (even down to the source codes), it was the most handicapped and limited OS I've ever used. MSDOS is at the core of Microsoft's success, they already were dominant within the market during this era, well before Windows 1.x became popular for home usage. IMO the reasons for Microsoft's success. 1) IBM choose for MSDOS for their computers despite better options existed. IBM unlike Microsoft was a big name back then, especially amongst businesses. Better options like QNX existed, but may have been too expensive considering usage (mainly brainless on and off activity at factories and such). IBM thought there wasn't a market for PC home usage, later on of course they were unhappy giving this might to Microsoft when the clones arrived. It was too late to launch their own operating system OS/2. 2) More user friendly and powerful systems like the Amiga, Atari ST, Acorn, Apple, etc existed. But they were more expensive and overkill for simple tasks. 3) More advanced versions of applications like Word Perfect were discontinued for the Amiga (Window controlled, Copy & Paste, multitasking enabled, etc). Instead Word Perfect as well as a non multi-tasking version of Lotus 1-2-3 were exclusively available for MSDOS, these were market leading applications at the time. People wanting to continue their work at home would pick a MSDOS PC to run Lotus and/or Word Perfect. No matter more advanced software existed, other apps were not compatible with those used at work.

If only appple would have licenced out there OS we would probably all me using MAC OSX right now

 

You know it must make you feel pretty bad when you write such an unresearched, ignorant MS bashing article that even a SDF staple such as MikeB comes to smack you around with the cold hard facts.