←back to thread

617 points EvgeniyZh | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.025s | source
Show context
santiagobasulto ◴[] No.43576378[source]
Microsoft (and maybe even Bill Gates personally) generated a strong "dislike" sentiment to the hacker community. But we can't deny that he and Paul Allen were pure breed hackers and helped a lot the development of technology. Of course, we all prefer OSS and we'd pick Linus (or insert OSS dev name here) 100 times over one of the "evil capitalists"/s, but nevertheless they have to be recognized.
replies(9): >>43576677 #>>43576921 #>>43577033 #>>43577209 #>>43577563 #>>43578156 #>>43579422 #>>43579491 #>>43588088 #
mmooss ◴[] No.43578156[source]
How were they "pure bread hackers"? Was Gates especially proficient with code? I've never heard that. From what I read, they were the enemies of hackers. This really seems like looking back with rose-colored glasses.

My understanding of Microsoft's success was it came from marketplace maneuvers, many ranging from unethical to illegal, not from quality or innovative hacking. Compare Windows with any contemporaneous MacOS, for example. They took over the office productivity software market by illegally leveraging their Windows monopoly. Their initial and core success - getting DOS on IBM PCs, which led to the Windows monopoly - was simply leaping at a business opportunity, I think even before they began developing the product.

Didn't they generate fake errors for Windows running on DR-DOS, or something like that, even though it ran fine? Do you mind that they tried to destroy and monopolize the open web (thank you Mozilla!)?

replies(8): >>43578704 #>>43578844 #>>43579055 #>>43579319 #>>43581196 #>>43584713 #>>43586533 #>>43589230 #
einr ◴[] No.43578844[source]
My understanding of Microsoft's success was it came from marketplace maneuvers, many ranging from unethical to illegal, not from quality or innovative hacking. Compare Windows with any contemporaneous MacOS, for example.

So it's 1992, and OS/2 still isn't happening.

But you can get a 386 at 16 or 25 MHz complete with maybe a 40 MB hard drive, color monitor, 256-color VGA, a couple megabytes of memory, and licenses for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 for $1000 or less. This will let you do a lot of computer things.

If you want to run Mac OS, the very cheapest Macintosh you can get is the Mac Classic, and it costs $1695 for a 7 MHz 68000, a single floppy drive, no hard drive, and a 1-bit black and white display. This will enable you to do a lot fewer computer things, much more slowly.

Macs were very expensive. Windows was good enough. It wasn't better, necessarily, but it wasn't strong-armed onto the market by shady maneuvers either -- at the time of Windows 3 and 95 it was genuinely good "product-market fit". Microsoft, from its earliest days, was good at leveraging mass-market hardware to deliver "good enough" software that worked for the majority of people. Of course they did shady stuff that increased their dominance, but Windows would have sold like hotcakes either way.

Didn't they generate fake errors for Windows running on DR-DOS, or something like that, even though it ran fine?

IIRC that code existed, but was commented out in the final build.

replies(2): >>43582824 #>>43587974 #
1. mmooss ◴[] No.43587974[source]
> IIRC that code existed, but was commented out in the final build.

I've never heard that and IIRC, DR-DOS's owners sued successfully (or DoJ sued successfully). People certainly saw the errors.

replies(1): >>43591811 #
2. canucker2016 ◴[] No.43591811[source]
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

    Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it so it could be later reactivated by the change of a single byte.

    DR DOS publisher Digital Research released a patch named "business update" in 1992 to bypass the AARD code.
replies(1): >>43598467 #
3. mmooss ◴[] No.43598467[source]
I don't take Wikipedia as gospel, but that doesn't say what happened with earlier versions of Windows. And regardless, how did DR-DOS sue them if they weren't affected?
replies(1): >>43605719 #
4. canucker2016 ◴[] No.43605719{3}[source]
the check for dr-dos didn't exist except in that beta version of Windows. there were no media reports of dr-dos problems with windows before then. according to the wikipedia entry, the code was disabled but still shipped in windows.
replies(1): >>43607273 #
5. mmooss ◴[] No.43607273{4}[source]
I think that repeats your GP comment? I have the same response - what are your subsequent thoughts?