When I was at uni in NZ (mid 70s) me and my friends wrote a compiler for 6800s (an algol subset, it fit in 2k), we wrote it with copyrights for "uSoft" (that's a greek mu), in retrospect it was an obvious name at the time.
Later we discovered some other guys using the same name in the US (also with a mu) they had a basic interpreter, how lame! (we had a compiler) however we really didn't understand the advantages of being born in the right place .....
I really wish we'd incorporated, we could have sold the name for some silly amount of money
Not just "incorporated", you would also have to have ported it to various computers that were sold (as MSFT did - and that Bill Gates' parents were lawyers with IBM contacts helped a lot).
NZ is a fantastic country, but is relatively remote from larger markets, and its own population isn't large enough for the economics of scale to apply only locally. So even if you had tried, you may have failed. As you rightly say, power of location. On the other hand, now, due to globalization, things are possible there, too - for example, the app market is not limited geographically.
BTW, you should consider uploading your old compiler's code on GitHub if you still have it; there is increased interest in "software archeology" now, given that so many emulators have been built.
I was more talking about owning the name in NZ (and maybe Oz)
The software source was on cards (developed on a simulator on a uni mainframe, much like Microsoft were developing their code), sadly the cards were left behind when I moved to the US a decade later
I worked in a digital technology company in Wellington in the 90s and one of our key technologies that we sold was a hosted form on a secure (remember, this is the era that https was not common) website to collect credit card payments. We were a proto Stripe in the year 1999 but totally in the wrong place in the world to take advantage of it.
May have been the wrong time too. 1999 was chock full of companies that failed to get traction and died during the dot-com collapse, but variants became much more successful 20 years later. Much of this was mostly waiting in infrastructure I suspect.
It's also almost 50 years since "An Open Letter to Hobbyists"[1]. It's amazing that in the last 30+ years, the "hobbyists" managed to turn the entire software industry by 180°, and that Microsoft themselves are reliant on that work.
Bill even specifically mentions musicians. By 1976, when blues was only ca 100 years old, most bands would play what we now call "covers", credit each original writer on the back of the record, and there was no shame or stigma around it. Art builds on art, and "stealing" is probably the most important part of the process[2].
Devils advocate: Imagine how much richer developers would have been today if software wasn't copied as much as it is today. Companies would have to pay developers to write it (we probably wouldn't have as much overall growth but devs would be richer). AI also wouldn't have been able to replace us if it was more secretive and proprietary.
Imagine how much public good can be done if the government had public software works project that did not need to rely on advertising to be useful while serving everyone (not just a boardroom of millionaires).
Nice try ChatGPT stealing from studio ghibli and Scarlett Johansson are still two egregious examples of what can kill artist's motivations. Why create or publish if credit is not given?
True, virtually all companies harvesting LLM training datasets don't bother honouring even the most permissive licenses, like MIT or BSD - Microsoft leading the pack with Github and Copilot.
You're right to point out that the tide is shifting again. Perhaps at the end of this bubble, society and/or the behemoth companies will recognise the value and help build a more sustainable future for artists and creators. I'm cautiously optimistic.
>By 1976, when blues was only ca 100 years old, most bands would play what we now call "covers", credit each original writer on the back of the record, and there was no shame or stigma around it.
I do enjoy some Led Zeppelin, and I often enjoy the artists they didn't credit, even more.
> And now most of those hobbists are going back to commercial licenses
It seems to be specifically the "hobbyists" that are also taking VC investment money for their "hobby project". It's pretty clear what's driving these decisions: VC's are not okay with a bootstrapped, penny-pinching business focusing on specialized support or custom development (which is the successful RedHat model), they want an early chance at really outsized returns.
Back in the day that letter was relevant we used to sell little tools via ads on magazines like BYTE, Dr Dobbs Journal and co, occasionally get nice money out of it.
Also in the early BSD/Linux days, there were distributors like Walnut Creek, Amiga had Fish Disks, and so forth, some money could eventually go back to tool writers.
[...] "Microsoft killed my company, and I hold a personal grudge. They are a company with vicious, predatory, anti-competitive business practices, and always have been. They also happen to make terrible products, and always have. I do not use any Microsoft products, and neither should you." - Jamie Zawinski
That guy hates MS because they included a web browser with their OS? Then he complains about being sent porn when he asks people to stop redistribution of his permissively licensed project while he shows me a hairy scrotum.
While the majority of revenue of Microsoft is not Windows anymore, I think Windows defines the brand much like how iPhone and Mac define Apple even though that might be part of the revenue not all of it.
What I am curious about is what happens when the original product that makes the company popular starts to experience poor quality. Take Google for example, its search has been on a decline in the last decade or so and needless to say the company is experiencing problems as well in the last few years. While GCP and GSuite are significant, people have lost faith in Google which probably started with search.
Windows 11 and the iPhone seem to be heading towards same fate as Google search imo.
The only people losing faith in Google (search) are power users such as us. Regular users haven't noticed the decline, and search may even have improved for them. We are not Google Search's target audience. We need to stop pretending all products are built for the power user niche.
Regular users have absolutely noticed the decline. A number of people I know have mentioned it to me unprompted. None of them are power users or even particularly tech-oriented.
A lot of non-power users are complementing Google search with ChatGPT. The main reason is that it will give an answer to more specific questions. Like “what are some quotes famous athletes have said about Usain Bolt”.
I thought they were talking about the traditional blue links Google search results, not the AI returned results. Then sure -- ChatGPT, Gemini, etc... I put them all in the same bucket as complementary. Interestingtly though, I don't get the AI Overview on mobile, so there I'd have to explicitly go to an LLM focused interface.
I'm a so called power user and don't really understand why everyone says it's worse. Google is better than ever. The problem I've seen is folks using older techniques for searching that don't really make sense anymore.
I don't see how exact search string can lose its sense. But it does yield "no results", more often than before even if the string has to be publicly available somewhere, in a source I could make sense of.
I can see how google can be seen as better in some ways, but brushing all case where it's worse as irrelevant looks like an easy shortcut to shut down complains without caring if they might be legit.
My wife is an opposite of power user and she now uses mostly chatgpt for anything more complex. The ease with fluent sentence search compared to trying to fit those few right terms that google search would understand, not overdo it, avoid over-SEO-ed pages... google search has been gamed for so long it became victim of its own success. It just has momentum but thats waning.
Plus often first results are pure ads, fuck that and fuck them. Maybe LLMs will one be gamed similarly, then we move to something else but right now its night and day even for common folks. Who cares knows it.
Just recent case - we were looking for a robot vacuum cleaner. Spent an hour battling shitty seoed crap sites in google search like nytimes with their paid very selective biased reviews, went over quite a few reliable ones, user reviews etc and came to my wife with list of preference vs cost vs reliability vs other aspects. She puts a short sentence in chatgpt and its the same freakin' list, in 20s.
For this kind of product search, may I suggest Consumer Reports. It's one of the very few sites I'd consider unbiased since they (a) do testing with actual technicians and extensive laboratories, (b) anonymously buy all the products they test and they don't take gifts or manufacturers' sponsorships, (c) don't take advertising. They are funded by subscriptions, donations, and grants, and have been in existence for 89 years.
Specifically for robot vacuums, I looked just now and Consumer Reports has reviewed 46 different models from 14 manufacturers. (I knew about Roomba but had no idea that robot vacuums had become such a big category.) I'm putting the robot vacuum link below to give an overview. It's worth subscribing to evaluate options for a big purchase.
+1 for Consumer Reports. They're not expensive either, something like $5 per month. If they keep you from buying a bad fridge, it pays for itself!
Their recentish coverage of lead in foods is a bit embarrassing though, since they used a California standard for dosage limits that even the EU would blush at.
I love this response, and I agree 100% with your suggestion, but, isn't it obvious? They didn't want to pay for high quality information. Instead, they needed to wade through rubbish "unpaid"/"free" search results. Or in their own words: "Spent an hour battling shitty seoed crap sites in google search".
Most people I know are now using deepseek. I don't even have to show them a filtered ad-free web, anymore (that most didn't even notice the lack of cruft).
Productivity apps would be MS Office, yes, as well as separately-purchased licenses for Publisher (and I'm sure there were several other apps at the time). I do not know whether this category would include Visual C++ or Visual Basic licenses, but I suspect it did.
I think you are correct on the OEM vs Consumer split. Long-forgotten memory: For awhile people would resell OEM software licenses online. OEM software licenses could only be sold as a bundle with PC hardware. But that limitation did not specify /what/ PC hardware or that it had to be an entire working system. So resellers would collect outdated 1MB SIMM memory cards or other small, cheap, outdated components and package them with the CDROM.
Still, from all computing platforms that I have used since my humble Timex 2068 in 1986, Windows is where I have most fun, despite all the ongoing issues.
When I first heard that, I thought it was an insane factoid.
But then I realized that slowly over time, iPhones grew to get into the price range of full-on computers. And also, even the cheaper iPhones add in up sales when you sell over a billion of them.
The iphone has lacked innovation under Cook. Last 3 iterations (since 13) have been virtually identical. Also, the failure of Apple Intelligence (oversold promise) has seriously hurt the brand. I am an avid iphone user, and will likely continue to be for the next 3 years. But innovation is suffering. Anecdotally, the least talented ML engineers are currently at Apple (the best engineers I know in the field are at Google and OpenAI). I don't expect Apple to be innovating much in that regard, given a lack of talent (just look at Siri for instance).
I'm a mostly-satisfied iPhone 13 mini user, but I'm considering moving back to Android for my next device. No one reason is the deal-breaker, but it's just a pile-up of stuff:
- My main compute platforms are now Linux and Windows, but even when I had a MacBook, I didn't really benefit much from whatever integration there was between the two.
- I tried and did not like Apple Watch, and I'm upset at Apple's treatment of other wearable makers like Fitbit and now Pebble.
- I'm frustrated that my iPhone 13 is still not USB-C when basically everything else I carry around is.
- I don't like how the Epic/Apple case went, and I wish Apple had been made to allow competing stores on their devices (the EU got this one right).
- With Apple having discontinued the "mini" models, physical size is no longer a differentiator— the Galaxy series phones are basically indistinguishable from modern iPhone models.
>The iphone has lacked innovation under Cook. Last 3 iterations (since 13) have been virtually identical.
Why do things need "innovated" constantly? Why keep making the phone slimmer rather than replace the battery with something more efficient, maybe add back the headphone port?
The original iPhone was a great leap forward, UX wise, but much like with a pickup truck at a certain point you'd expect minor tweaks with the yearly models.
I agree they don't need to (and I believe their software needs lots of work, so stagnant hardware while they work on software should be fine). But, lack of innovation drives consumer fatigue, which hurts the brand (other companies will innovate and eat your customers).
>lack of innovation drives consumer fatigue, which hurts the brand (other companies will innovate and eat your customers).
But is adding features no one wants that sometimes degrade the user experience "innovation"?
I agree if they don't think about what consumers want and make updates they could get overtaken, but I don't think anyone is gonna jump to Android because they can get a 2MM smaller chassis --- the opposite, they might want an "innovative" phone with a removable and swappable battery, multiple SIMs, FM tuner, and a few other features that aren't "shiny" but the iPhone lacks.
> the failure of Apple Intelligence (oversold promise) has seriously hurt the brand
If this is true, is the dominance of the iPhone faded in any of their primary markets? Also: If the brand was so damaged, what brands are people moving towards?
I am a former Android user, but the quality of apps on iOS is just so much better. The apps "just work", and the integration with Mac, iPad, and watch is just simply so far ahead of anything Android offered, even if people think there is no innovation. IMO, it's so much better and the whole mobile space is stagnating, I think they will be fine even if they add features 3 years later.
The thing is, Apple of Steve Jobs was more than just a "does the job" kind of product company, which was IBM's and Microsoft's place. It was sort of magical and ahead of the curve on many innovative things that would revolutionize and set industry trends.
Now under Tim Cook it feels stale and boring, kind of like your grandads khaki pants, does the job but we've seen it already several times, give us something new and revolutionary not incremental upgrades to the same things from 10+ years ago.
Apple of today resembles more the Dell/Compaq of the early 2000s, focused on milking the user lock-in effects and optimizing the supply chain to increase margins except wrapped in flashy presentations, but just as soulless and dead inside as those.
Doesn't that include Google Workspace though? Sure, a dollar is a dollar, but presumably a huge chunk of that money is Workspace, meaning it's not going towards raw compute.
Google Cloud Platform is a part of Google Cloud, which includes the Google Cloud Platform public cloud infrastructure, as well as Google Workspace (G Suite), enterprise versions of Android and ChromeOS, and application programming interfaces (APIs) for machine learning and enterprise mapping services. Since at least 2022,[9] Google's official materials have stated that "Google Cloud" is the new name for "Google Cloud Platform," which may cause naming confusion.
(Yes it’s a Wikipedia link. But if you go to the article it includes citations)
Microsoft does not include Office sales with its Azure revenue.
This is a build or test lab, not the offices of developers. I visited multiple times in the period mentioned for the picture, and saw multiple of these. The one I saw most often was the NT build lab. When I started there in the mid-2000s, these labs were still used, although the build labs were a little less densely packed thanks to remote tools.
This picture without context gave me QA or build lab type vibes, and the caption in the story confirmed that. They had to test on all kinds of configurations and hardware, so this makes sense- tbh I am surprised its this small. Remote tools didn't really exist in those days, and even if they did, they are unlikely to work if the OS is having issues. So you run a test, find an issue, and if its hard to reproduce you might just have to bring the dev into the lab to get on the box to understand what happened.
It looks very similar to a QA Lab at a place I worked at in the early 2000s. They essentially commandeered a larger conference room and there were just (cpu) boxes everywhere.
The caption says 1995, so this is most definitely one of the test labs. We used to have rows of shelves with PCs in various hardware configurations that were tested with daily builds.
Everyone did have their own offices in the early-mid 90s. By the late 90s we were sharing, depending on seniority (years in the company, not title, which was refreshing).
"Remember when things were not insanely bloated and we all knew what we were collectively doing?" they all said, a wistful tear developing in each of their eyes, nobody daring to release theirs first.
Nah, Happy Anniversary, Microsoft. As much as we do not get along, you did do _some_ good in the world.
I remember exactly that moment I first saw a Windows 95 bootup.
First the new _animated_ boot splash with the ms-logo, then the elegant start up piano sound, the amazing new start button with a menu with so perfectly organized applications, settings and a run input. It was like stepping into the future.
Windows 3.11 and dos 6.22 was normal yesterday, it worked, was cool and had all the stuff I loved to do - but after this day they felt dated and ancient.
> First the new _animated_ boot splash with the ms-logo, then the elegant start up piano sound, the amazing new start button with a menu with so perfectly organized applications, settings and a run input. It was like stepping into the future.
Sadly that future is now behind us. Nowadays I struggle to figure out what is a button, excuse me, clickable.
More like stepping into the past with things that the Mac, Amiga and NeXT machines could do out-of-the-box in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I mean, 8.3 file names? Seriously? Who thought that these could be "user friendly"?
What struck me most in this piece wasn't just the milestones or big product moments, but how human the journey was. From someone getting hired off a newsletter in a Honda Civic to negotiating with the Rolling Stones, or building a global business with zero prior international experience. It's a reminder that behind all the megacorp mythology, these were regular people taking huge risks.
There are so few books on early Microsoft, and they're all so fascinating. One I like is Microsoft: First Generation. One I think is humorous, but not that informative, is Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.
Microserfs is pretty fun, though the details are fictional. What stuck in my mind is that they spent so much effort clawing their way to the top, and when they were there, they didn't know what to do anymore and lost their way. Microsoft was a mess for 15 years or so.
Hard Drive, ostensibly about Bill Gates, was a great read when I was a kid. I recommend ‘Microserfs’ from Douglas Coupland as a fictional (but grounded) homage to the work in the 90s.
I read Hard Drive by James Wallace and Jim Erickson a couple years ago. It was written between Windows 3.1 and 95. Super interesting to read Microsoft history from the perspective of that time period. I loved it.
Maybe after all the whole story is not that fascinating?
Bill was coming from the wealthy family, his mum was IBM VP and gave his son a contract to sell operating system, even though there were better alternatives on the market. Ye good ol' story about corporate corruption that gave us such amazing products like Internet Explorer 6, Windows 98 Millenium Edition or Windows Vista.
We could've lived in a so much better World if we didn't have to deal for years with crappy Microsoft operating system and other MS products.
She was later appointed to the board of the United Way of America; in 1983, she became the first woman to lead it. Right Time, Right Place
Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John R. Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, the business that I.B.M. was doing with Microsoft.
Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives. A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.
That's absurd. Trailblazer means a pioneer; an innovator. Apple is one. Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is known for copying ideas, not for innovating. If there is one thing that hasn't changed in 50 years, it is the fact that they don't innovate. Take their recent products: Teams is a copy of Slack. Loop is a copy of Notion. This has been going on throughout their history. .NET is a copy of Java. Windows is a copy of MacOS. Excel is a copy of Visicalc and Lotus 123, Word is a copy of WordStar and WordPerfect, PowerPoint a copy of Harvard Graphics and Aldus Persuasion, and Access a copy of dBASE and FoxPro.
What about Microsoft makes them not innovate? To innovate you have to hire smart developers and let them do what they love doing. This will result in some waste, as only some of the ideas will be successful financially. But the ones that succeed will be innovative. Microsoft doesn't do that. They hire good developers and assign them to a Program Manager who gives them a fully nailed-down spec for what to build. Inevitably the Program Manager (who are often business people) will find financially successful products to clone. This rarely results in waste as the product they are cloning has already created a market, Microsoft only needs to take the market from the innovator, which they do by bundling the product with either Office or Windows.
While I don’t disagree that Microsoft isn’t necessarily the most innovative, Apple is absolutely the most successful example of “first mover advantage” not actually being an advantage, and second movers can often be the actual winners. Literally every product they have launched in the last few decades has had the category already defined, they just came in with so much more polish and elegance (and sharp marketing) that they just repeatedly obliterate and take over the category as if they invented it.
I’ll never forget when they dedicated a minute or two in a keynote a few years ago to how they improved the volume indicator visual overlay in iOS to be less obtrusive like they talked to god himself to figure this out, when Android had that style for years…it was brilliant marketing.
RE ....Microsoft isn’t necessarily the most innovative.... Did you know Microsoft copied the idea of product activation from a PATENT and got fined about $300M USD for stealing the IP. Google the words Microsoft's fine for copying product activation idea, Ric Richardson for all the details .....
I’m no Microsoft fanboy, but Microsoft Excel was very innovative for being one of the first graphical spreadsheets, originally written for the classic Mac OS in the mid-1980s before it was available for Windows. It was Excel, not Word or PowerPoint, that fueled the popularity of Microsoft Office in the 1990s, though admittedly I lament the decline of WordPerfect and other word processors. Sure, Excel might not have been the most innovative graphical spreadsheet; that award goes to Lotus Improv for the NeXT computer. However, Excel was a leap ahead of DOS-based spreadsheets like Lotus 1-2-3.
There are other innovative Microsoft products. Visual Basic was a very nice rapid GUI development environment in the 1990s. Windows 95’s interface was the result of a lot of research done on the user experience, and the result was a GUI that not only has persisted (with many modifications, of course) for about 30 years, but has inspired other desktops such as various Linux desktops, and in some ways even influenced later Mac operating systems.
Let’s also not forget Microsoft Research, which has produced a lot of interesting work in operating systems and programming language research.
While I agree that Microsoft Excel is a contender for the best Microsoft product ever, I do not see how one can claim that it was a more "graphical" spreadsheet that MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3, except if by "graphical" you just mean that it was a native Windows application, so you did not have to exit Windows and revert to MS-DOS for having the best user experience, like you would have needed with MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 (whose drivers for various hardware graphics devices would not have worked well or at all under Windows emulation).
When Windows 95 has made MS-DOS obsolete, Excel had the huge advantage of being a native Windows application, so I have switched like everybody else from Lotus 1-2-3 to Microsoft Excel, because switching between Windows and MS-DOS was unpleasant and inconvenient, and because the new Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows did not have any of the advantages of Lotus 1-2-3 for MS-DOS, while being inferior as a Windows program to MS Excel.
Even if I have switched to Excel, for supporting the general Windows features, like nice TrueType fonts and being able to use great amounts of memory in a faster way, due to direct access instead of using extended/expanded memory, at that time Excel did not have any spreadsheet-specific feature, graphic or otherwise, that was better than Lotus 1-2-3.
Despite strongly preferring Windows 95 to MS-DOS, I have always regretted a few MS-DOS programs that had a much better user interface than any Windows program that I have ever seen.
One of those was Lotus 1-2-3. Learning to use MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 was significantly more difficult than learning MS Excel, but once you were an expert the speed of doing any spreadsheet operations using keyboard shortcuts was many times greater than what is possible in Excel with a mouse-based UI, or even with the Excel keyboard shortcuts, which are much less efficient.
While the early Excel was extremely easy to use, that is no longer true about modern Excel or MS Office. Even if I had used for many decades MS Excel and several other spreadsheet applications, when I open now the recent versions of MS Word or MS Excel, I am no longer able to find most of the commands that I need and that I know that they must exist, except after a long random search through various menus, because those no longer have a hierarchical structure whose principles of organization I can discern. This is completely different from older versions of Excel, where one needed no help and no manuals to easily find any required command.
WSL2 is pretty nice as is powershell. Also I haven't done windows development in years but I miss windbg - still don't have anything like it on linux. Also you probably use vscode and people like typescript. playwright and omniparse are pretty useful as well.
And unlike with a lot of companies, they often continue to invest and move their acquisitions forward, such as github.
> And unlike with a lot of companies, they often continue to invest and move their acquisitions forward, such as github.
Which helps them win in the enterprise. Not just their acquisitions, but if MS puts out a tech you can be confidently sure they are going to support it for a long time. There's been a few examples contrary to that - Silverlight and their UI frameworks they can't seem to get a handle on, but everything else they've put out exists long-term, and is generally backwards compatible.
There aren't many others that offer that level of stability. We tend to value new and shiny, but non-tech companies don't they want boring and stable, which is why Microsoft won there. Hell, you can still run a lot of apps from the Windows 3.11 era on Windows 11 with minimal fuss. The same can't be said for most other platforms.
Microsoft tech isn't necessarily sexy or exciting, but it checks boxes and is supported for a LONG time, and for a closed source OS, Windows is surprisingly open and configurable (well, used to be anyway - that seems to be going away with 11+)
You're conflating innovation with discovery/invention. Innovation isn't simply "think of/create something new", it includes incremental changes to something, leveraging an existing thing in a new way, etc.
.NET is certainly not "a copy" of Java, it's just Java done correctly ;-)
In the linked article, Hejlsberg considers adding a new checked exception a breaking change (true), but adding a new thrown exception to not be, because "in a lot of cases, people don't care." I think this is obviously open to debate.
You're conflating "incorrect" with "mistake," no one is saying the C# team forgot to add checked exceptions.
I have a lot of respect for Anders Hejlsberg. But that doesn't mean he is never wrong. Hejlsberg doesn't think anyone would want to recover from exceptions. "There's a bottom level exception handler around their message loop. That handler is just going to bring up a dialog that says what went wrong and continue." Okaayyy... I think we know a bit more about exception handling than that today! Real-world applications often need more sophisticated exception handling strategies.
That’s fair. For Microsoft, I think they trailblazed on how to be a global tech monopoly. The dotcom companies (ie Amazon, Google, etc) all followed those footprints to dominate.
Absurd comment. Microsoft forged the desktop space into what it is today. You clearly don't like them but their contributions and market decisions quickly outpaced Apple and everyone else in the 1990s. They created the dominant PC experience that remains to this day by a large margin.
>What’s cool about the Dutch East India Company and Standard Oil is that there will never be another company like those two. They are true trailblazers in so many ways.
It's just a joke about the ridiculousness that large economy dominating companies can't possibly be replaced and will last forever. Thus, instead of modern companies they give the example of two titans of vintage corporate might (one from several centuries ago and one more recent, just a century ago) are used instead. Ah, Hubris.
Apple and Microsoft (as well as companies like Commodore) were there for personal computing’s birth. Amazon, Google and Meta came far later and didn’t invent their respective industries.
HP sold what they called a "personal computer" in the 1960s, well before Apple and Microsoft came around. It wasn't exactly what we consider to be a personal computer nowadays, but MySpace wasn't exactly what we consider social media to be today either. I'm not sure these things happen in discrete steps like you seem to imply. There is a clear continuum. I think it is quite fair to say, for example, that Meta help define its industry like Microsoft and Apple helped define theirs.
There will never be exact replicas of Apple and Microsoft again, but there undoubtedly will be many companies in the future that we will eventually look back upon in the same way.
You are confusing the first personal computer with the rise of personal computing. Inventing a product isn’t very useful if you don’t invent the product market as well.
It's interesting that Microsoft was founded almost exactly a year before Apple (April 1st, 1976). I can't imagine Apple will miss the opportunity to make a big deal out of it.
When I was at uni in NZ (mid 70s) me and my friends wrote a compiler for 6800s (an algol subset, it fit in 2k), we wrote it with copyrights for "uSoft" (that's a greek mu), in retrospect it was an obvious name at the time.
Later we discovered some other guys using the same name in the US (also with a mu) they had a basic interpreter, how lame! (we had a compiler) however we really didn't understand the advantages of being born in the right place .....
I really wish we'd incorporated, we could have sold the name for some silly amount of money
Not just "incorporated", you would also have to have ported it to various computers that were sold (as MSFT did - and that Bill Gates' parents were lawyers with IBM contacts helped a lot).
NZ is a fantastic country, but is relatively remote from larger markets, and its own population isn't large enough for the economics of scale to apply only locally. So even if you had tried, you may have failed. As you rightly say, power of location. On the other hand, now, due to globalization, things are possible there, too - for example, the app market is not limited geographically.
BTW, you should consider uploading your old compiler's code on GitHub if you still have it; there is increased interest in "software archeology" now, given that so many emulators have been built.
I was more talking about owning the name in NZ (and maybe Oz)
The software source was on cards (developed on a simulator on a uni mainframe, much like Microsoft were developing their code), sadly the cards were left behind when I moved to the US a decade later
That's such a great story and such a classic case of being just ahead of the curve but in the wrong corner of the world.
I worked in a digital technology company in Wellington in the 90s and one of our key technologies that we sold was a hosted form on a secure (remember, this is the era that https was not common) website to collect credit card payments. We were a proto Stripe in the year 1999 but totally in the wrong place in the world to take advantage of it.
May have been the wrong time too. 1999 was chock full of companies that failed to get traction and died during the dot-com collapse, but variants became much more successful 20 years later. Much of this was mostly waiting in infrastructure I suspect.
It's also almost 50 years since "An Open Letter to Hobbyists"[1]. It's amazing that in the last 30+ years, the "hobbyists" managed to turn the entire software industry by 180°, and that Microsoft themselves are reliant on that work.
Bill even specifically mentions musicians. By 1976, when blues was only ca 100 years old, most bands would play what we now call "covers", credit each original writer on the back of the record, and there was no shame or stigma around it. Art builds on art, and "stealing" is probably the most important part of the process[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
[2]: https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Devils advocate: Imagine how much richer developers would have been today if software wasn't copied as much as it is today. Companies would have to pay developers to write it (we probably wouldn't have as much overall growth but devs would be richer). AI also wouldn't have been able to replace us if it was more secretive and proprietary.
Imagine how much public good can be done if the government had public software works project that did not need to rely on advertising to be useful while serving everyone (not just a boardroom of millionaires).
> Art builds on art, and "stealing" is probably the most important part of the process[2].
> [2]: https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Nice try ChatGPT stealing from studio ghibli and Scarlett Johansson are still two egregious examples of what can kill artist's motivations. Why create or publish if credit is not given?
True, virtually all companies harvesting LLM training datasets don't bother honouring even the most permissive licenses, like MIT or BSD - Microsoft leading the pack with Github and Copilot.
You're right to point out that the tide is shifting again. Perhaps at the end of this bubble, society and/or the behemoth companies will recognise the value and help build a more sustainable future for artists and creators. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Downvote for low quality "nice try".
>By 1976, when blues was only ca 100 years old, most bands would play what we now call "covers", credit each original writer on the back of the record, and there was no shame or stigma around it.
I do enjoy some Led Zeppelin, and I often enjoy the artists they didn't credit, even more.
And now most of those hobbists are going back to commercial licenses, because other hobbists don't pay them, and there are bills to pay.
> And now most of those hobbists are going back to commercial licenses
It seems to be specifically the "hobbyists" that are also taking VC investment money for their "hobby project". It's pretty clear what's driving these decisions: VC's are not okay with a bootstrapped, penny-pinching business focusing on specialized support or custom development (which is the successful RedHat model), they want an early chance at really outsized returns.
Back in the day that letter was relevant we used to sell little tools via ads on magazines like BYTE, Dr Dobbs Journal and co, occasionally get nice money out of it.
Also in the early BSD/Linux days, there were distributors like Walnut Creek, Amiga had Fish Disks, and so forth, some money could eventually go back to tool writers.
It isn't only about VC money.
[...] "Microsoft killed my company, and I hold a personal grudge. They are a company with vicious, predatory, anti-competitive business practices, and always have been. They also happen to make terrible products, and always have. I do not use any Microsoft products, and neither should you." - Jamie Zawinski
https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/xscreensaver-windows.html
That guy hates MS because they included a web browser with their OS? Then he complains about being sent porn when he asks people to stop redistribution of his permissively licensed project while he shows me a hairy scrotum.
Seems a little irrational.
Stress is a minor form of torture.
Torture itself is irrational, but so are the things that humans will do or say when subjected to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghczTVgav0
While the majority of revenue of Microsoft is not Windows anymore, I think Windows defines the brand much like how iPhone and Mac define Apple even though that might be part of the revenue not all of it.
What I am curious about is what happens when the original product that makes the company popular starts to experience poor quality. Take Google for example, its search has been on a decline in the last decade or so and needless to say the company is experiencing problems as well in the last few years. While GCP and GSuite are significant, people have lost faith in Google which probably started with search.
Windows 11 and the iPhone seem to be heading towards same fate as Google search imo.
The only people losing faith in Google (search) are power users such as us. Regular users haven't noticed the decline, and search may even have improved for them. We are not Google Search's target audience. We need to stop pretending all products are built for the power user niche.
Regular users have absolutely noticed the decline. A number of people I know have mentioned it to me unprompted. None of them are power users or even particularly tech-oriented.
A lot of non-power users are complementing Google search with ChatGPT. The main reason is that it will give an answer to more specific questions. Like “what are some quotes famous athletes have said about Usain Bolt”.
I thought they were talking about the traditional blue links Google search results, not the AI returned results. Then sure -- ChatGPT, Gemini, etc... I put them all in the same bucket as complementary. Interestingtly though, I don't get the AI Overview on mobile, so there I'd have to explicitly go to an LLM focused interface.
I'm a so called power user and don't really understand why everyone says it's worse. Google is better than ever. The problem I've seen is folks using older techniques for searching that don't really make sense anymore.
What are the newer searching techniques that make more sense?
I don't see how exact search string can lose its sense. But it does yield "no results", more often than before even if the string has to be publicly available somewhere, in a source I could make sense of.
I can see how google can be seen as better in some ways, but brushing all case where it's worse as irrelevant looks like an easy shortcut to shut down complains without caring if they might be legit.
> I've seen is folks using older techniques for searching that don't really make sense anymore.
Like typing what you want to search in the search input and hit enter?
My wife is an opposite of power user and she now uses mostly chatgpt for anything more complex. The ease with fluent sentence search compared to trying to fit those few right terms that google search would understand, not overdo it, avoid over-SEO-ed pages... google search has been gamed for so long it became victim of its own success. It just has momentum but thats waning.
Plus often first results are pure ads, fuck that and fuck them. Maybe LLMs will one be gamed similarly, then we move to something else but right now its night and day even for common folks. Who cares knows it.
Just recent case - we were looking for a robot vacuum cleaner. Spent an hour battling shitty seoed crap sites in google search like nytimes with their paid very selective biased reviews, went over quite a few reliable ones, user reviews etc and came to my wife with list of preference vs cost vs reliability vs other aspects. She puts a short sentence in chatgpt and its the same freakin' list, in 20s.
> we were looking for a robot vacuum cleaner
For this kind of product search, may I suggest Consumer Reports. It's one of the very few sites I'd consider unbiased since they (a) do testing with actual technicians and extensive laboratories, (b) anonymously buy all the products they test and they don't take gifts or manufacturers' sponsorships, (c) don't take advertising. They are funded by subscriptions, donations, and grants, and have been in existence for 89 years.
Specifically for robot vacuums, I looked just now and Consumer Reports has reviewed 46 different models from 14 manufacturers. (I knew about Roomba but had no idea that robot vacuums had become such a big category.) I'm putting the robot vacuum link below to give an overview. It's worth subscribing to evaluate options for a big purchase.
https://www.consumerreports.org/appliances/vacuum-cleaners/r...
+1 for Consumer Reports. They're not expensive either, something like $5 per month. If they keep you from buying a bad fridge, it pays for itself!
Their recentish coverage of lead in foods is a bit embarrassing though, since they used a California standard for dosage limits that even the EU would blush at.
I love this response, and I agree 100% with your suggestion, but, isn't it obvious? They didn't want to pay for high quality information. Instead, they needed to wade through rubbish "unpaid"/"free" search results. Or in their own words: "Spent an hour battling shitty seoed crap sites in google search".
Most people I know are now using deepseek. I don't even have to show them a filtered ad-free web, anymore (that most didn't even notice the lack of cruft).
> While the majority of revenue of Microsoft is not Windows anymore
It’s hasn’t been for 25+ years (more than 50% of Microsoft existence).
https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar00/mdna.htmProductivity apps would be MS Office, yes, as well as separately-purchased licenses for Publisher (and I'm sure there were several other apps at the time). I do not know whether this category would include Visual C++ or Visual Basic licenses, but I suspect it did.
I think you are correct on the OEM vs Consumer split. Long-forgotten memory: For awhile people would resell OEM software licenses online. OEM software licenses could only be sold as a bundle with PC hardware. But that limitation did not specify /what/ PC hardware or that it had to be an entire working system. So resellers would collect outdated 1MB SIMM memory cards or other small, cheap, outdated components and package them with the CDROM.
Still, from all computing platforms that I have used since my humble Timex 2068 in 1986, Windows is where I have most fun, despite all the ongoing issues.
> how iPhone and Mac define Apple even though that might be part of the revenue not all of it
iPhone defines Apple, and that is justified considering the single product makes up 55% of the company's revenue.
When I first heard that, I thought it was an insane factoid.
But then I realized that slowly over time, iPhones grew to get into the price range of full-on computers. And also, even the cheaper iPhones add in up sales when you sell over a billion of them.
The flagship product may no longer be the main revenue driver, but it still defines the brand in people's minds
How is iPhone headings towards a similar fate?
The iphone has lacked innovation under Cook. Last 3 iterations (since 13) have been virtually identical. Also, the failure of Apple Intelligence (oversold promise) has seriously hurt the brand. I am an avid iphone user, and will likely continue to be for the next 3 years. But innovation is suffering. Anecdotally, the least talented ML engineers are currently at Apple (the best engineers I know in the field are at Google and OpenAI). I don't expect Apple to be innovating much in that regard, given a lack of talent (just look at Siri for instance).
I'm a mostly-satisfied iPhone 13 mini user, but I'm considering moving back to Android for my next device. No one reason is the deal-breaker, but it's just a pile-up of stuff:
- My main compute platforms are now Linux and Windows, but even when I had a MacBook, I didn't really benefit much from whatever integration there was between the two.
- I tried and did not like Apple Watch, and I'm upset at Apple's treatment of other wearable makers like Fitbit and now Pebble.
- I'm frustrated that my iPhone 13 is still not USB-C when basically everything else I carry around is.
- I don't like how the Epic/Apple case went, and I wish Apple had been made to allow competing stores on their devices (the EU got this one right).
- With Apple having discontinued the "mini" models, physical size is no longer a differentiator— the Galaxy series phones are basically indistinguishable from modern iPhone models.
>The iphone has lacked innovation under Cook. Last 3 iterations (since 13) have been virtually identical.
Why do things need "innovated" constantly? Why keep making the phone slimmer rather than replace the battery with something more efficient, maybe add back the headphone port?
The original iPhone was a great leap forward, UX wise, but much like with a pickup truck at a certain point you'd expect minor tweaks with the yearly models.
I agree they don't need to (and I believe their software needs lots of work, so stagnant hardware while they work on software should be fine). But, lack of innovation drives consumer fatigue, which hurts the brand (other companies will innovate and eat your customers).
>lack of innovation drives consumer fatigue, which hurts the brand (other companies will innovate and eat your customers).
But is adding features no one wants that sometimes degrade the user experience "innovation"?
I agree if they don't think about what consumers want and make updates they could get overtaken, but I don't think anyone is gonna jump to Android because they can get a 2MM smaller chassis --- the opposite, they might want an "innovative" phone with a removable and swappable battery, multiple SIMs, FM tuner, and a few other features that aren't "shiny" but the iPhone lacks.
Apple has some serious talent working on this stuff but they aren’t willing to rip apart user privacy to do things quickly like other companies.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
I am a former Android user, but the quality of apps on iOS is just so much better. The apps "just work", and the integration with Mac, iPad, and watch is just simply so far ahead of anything Android offered, even if people think there is no innovation. IMO, it's so much better and the whole mobile space is stagnating, I think they will be fine even if they add features 3 years later.
It does what I need it to do.
As opposed to Google Search which does what I need it to do (and could do before) less and less
>It does what I need it to do.
The thing is, Apple of Steve Jobs was more than just a "does the job" kind of product company, which was IBM's and Microsoft's place. It was sort of magical and ahead of the curve on many innovative things that would revolutionize and set industry trends.
Now under Tim Cook it feels stale and boring, kind of like your grandads khaki pants, does the job but we've seen it already several times, give us something new and revolutionary not incremental upgrades to the same things from 10+ years ago.
Apple of today resembles more the Dell/Compaq of the early 2000s, focused on milking the user lock-in effects and optimizing the supply chain to increase margins except wrapped in flashy presentations, but just as soulless and dead inside as those.
I’m just upset they don’t make small phones anymore, but I don’t think that’s relevant to their revenue.
Didn’t they just release a small-ish one ?
The 16e is still a lot bigger than the 13 Mini. Even the Mini series is much bigger than the 5 or 1st SE.
I have a bit of hope that if they ever make a foldable phone, it’ll be small when folded.
> has seriously hurt the brand
You're forgetting the Apple Vision Pro flop.
Google’s product is ads and GCP is an insignificant player in the cloud space. When I was at AWS ProServe, we never took GCP as a serious competitor.
GSuite still hasn’t made any inroads into the enterprise of governments where the money is.
Google Cloud revenues were $48B in 2024 vs $109B for AWS. It's silly to call that insignificant.
Doesn't that include Google Workspace though? Sure, a dollar is a dollar, but presumably a huge chunk of that money is Workspace, meaning it's not going towards raw compute.
But if we represent it as a percentage we can pretend it's relatively not a big deal and minimize their stranglehold on society.
GCP has a stranglehold on society?
Everyone who uses Chrome on Windows, Macs, and iPhones makes a choice to use it. Everyone who uses Google makes a choice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Cloud_Platform
Google Cloud Platform is a part of Google Cloud, which includes the Google Cloud Platform public cloud infrastructure, as well as Google Workspace (G Suite), enterprise versions of Android and ChromeOS, and application programming interfaces (APIs) for machine learning and enterprise mapping services. Since at least 2022,[9] Google's official materials have stated that "Google Cloud" is the new name for "Google Cloud Platform," which may cause naming confusion.
(Yes it’s a Wikipedia link. But if you go to the article it includes citations)
Microsoft does not include Office sales with its Azure revenue.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/0...
This development environment looks interesting：why two shelves?
Also the place look like a cheap airline cabin. I thought all MSFT employees have their own offices back then. Maybe it's because that's the lab?
This is a build or test lab, not the offices of developers. I visited multiple times in the period mentioned for the picture, and saw multiple of these. The one I saw most often was the NT build lab. When I started there in the mid-2000s, these labs were still used, although the build labs were a little less densely packed thanks to remote tools.
Yep looks like the build lab described in the book Showstopper. I think there were even photos of this room in there.
This picture without context gave me QA or build lab type vibes, and the caption in the story confirmed that. They had to test on all kinds of configurations and hardware, so this makes sense- tbh I am surprised its this small. Remote tools didn't really exist in those days, and even if they did, they are unlikely to work if the OS is having issues. So you run a test, find an issue, and if its hard to reproduce you might just have to bring the dev into the lab to get on the box to understand what happened.
It looks very similar to a QA Lab at a place I worked at in the early 2000s. They essentially commandeered a larger conference room and there were just (cpu) boxes everywhere.
The caption says 1995, so this is most definitely one of the test labs. We used to have rows of shelves with PCs in various hardware configurations that were tested with daily builds.
Everyone did have their own offices in the early-mid 90s. By the late 90s we were sharing, depending on seniority (years in the company, not title, which was refreshing).
"Remember when things were not insanely bloated and we all knew what we were collectively doing?" they all said, a wistful tear developing in each of their eyes, nobody daring to release theirs first.
Nah, Happy Anniversary, Microsoft. As much as we do not get along, you did do _some_ good in the world.
I remember exactly that moment I first saw a Windows 95 bootup.
First the new _animated_ boot splash with the ms-logo, then the elegant start up piano sound, the amazing new start button with a menu with so perfectly organized applications, settings and a run input. It was like stepping into the future.
Windows 3.11 and dos 6.22 was normal yesterday, it worked, was cool and had all the stuff I loved to do - but after this day they felt dated and ancient.
Such moments are rare. Microsoft rocked so hard
One of my favourite memories of Windows 95 was - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqL1BLzn3qc. It felt absolutely futuristic watching a video from a CD at that time.
I have similar vivid memories. I saw win 95 first in my room mate’s PC. I was completely blown away, like “what sorcery is this” level of mind blown.
> First the new _animated_ boot splash with the ms-logo, then the elegant start up piano sound, the amazing new start button with a menu with so perfectly organized applications, settings and a run input. It was like stepping into the future.
Sadly that future is now behind us. Nowadays I struggle to figure out what is a button, excuse me, clickable.
> It was like stepping into the future.
More like stepping into the past with things that the Mac, Amiga and NeXT machines could do out-of-the-box in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I mean, 8.3 file names? Seriously? Who thought that these could be "user friendly"?
Windows 95 allowed long file names with arbitrary dots.
The path length (including full folder path and the file name) was limited to 260 characters.
What struck me most in this piece wasn't just the milestones or big product moments, but how human the journey was. From someone getting hired off a newsletter in a Honda Civic to negotiating with the Rolling Stones, or building a global business with zero prior international experience. It's a reminder that behind all the megacorp mythology, these were regular people taking huge risks.
https://archive.ph/WIAoq
There are so few books on early Microsoft, and they're all so fascinating. One I like is Microsoft: First Generation. One I think is humorous, but not that informative, is Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.
Microserfs is pretty fun, though the details are fictional. What stuck in my mind is that they spent so much effort clawing their way to the top, and when they were there, they didn't know what to do anymore and lost their way. Microsoft was a mess for 15 years or so.
Hard Drive, ostensibly about Bill Gates, was a great read when I was a kid. I recommend ‘Microserfs’ from Douglas Coupland as a fictional (but grounded) homage to the work in the 90s.
try Computer Wars: How the West Can Win in a Post-IBM World. By Charles H. Ferguson from 1993. The author is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ferguson_(filmmaker) this one
I read Hard Drive by James Wallace and Jim Erickson a couple years ago. It was written between Windows 3.1 and 95. Super interesting to read Microsoft history from the perspective of that time period. I loved it.
Maybe after all the whole story is not that fascinating?
Bill was coming from the wealthy family, his mum was IBM VP and gave his son a contract to sell operating system, even though there were better alternatives on the market. Ye good ol' story about corporate corruption that gave us such amazing products like Internet Explorer 6, Windows 98 Millenium Edition or Windows Vista.
We could've lived in a so much better World if we didn't have to deal for years with crappy Microsoft operating system and other MS products.
Bill Gates's mom and the chairman of IBM were on the executive committee of the same charity, the United Way.
from https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-...
I loved how the Windows 95 install CD had Weezer's Buddy Holly video on it. I remember finding it and thinking it was so cool they did that.
And the trailer to Rob Roy. (Why do I even remember this??) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al8YJGwn9Y8
Actual Code https://images.gatesnotes.com/12514eb8-7b51-008e-41a9-512542...
What’s cool about MSFT and APPLE is that there will never be another company like those two. They are true trailblazers in so many ways.
That's absurd. Trailblazer means a pioneer; an innovator. Apple is one. Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is known for copying ideas, not for innovating. If there is one thing that hasn't changed in 50 years, it is the fact that they don't innovate. Take their recent products: Teams is a copy of Slack. Loop is a copy of Notion. This has been going on throughout their history. .NET is a copy of Java. Windows is a copy of MacOS. Excel is a copy of Visicalc and Lotus 123, Word is a copy of WordStar and WordPerfect, PowerPoint a copy of Harvard Graphics and Aldus Persuasion, and Access a copy of dBASE and FoxPro.
What about Microsoft makes them not innovate? To innovate you have to hire smart developers and let them do what they love doing. This will result in some waste, as only some of the ideas will be successful financially. But the ones that succeed will be innovative. Microsoft doesn't do that. They hire good developers and assign them to a Program Manager who gives them a fully nailed-down spec for what to build. Inevitably the Program Manager (who are often business people) will find financially successful products to clone. This rarely results in waste as the product they are cloning has already created a market, Microsoft only needs to take the market from the innovator, which they do by bundling the product with either Office or Windows.
While I don’t disagree that Microsoft isn’t necessarily the most innovative, Apple is absolutely the most successful example of “first mover advantage” not actually being an advantage, and second movers can often be the actual winners. Literally every product they have launched in the last few decades has had the category already defined, they just came in with so much more polish and elegance (and sharp marketing) that they just repeatedly obliterate and take over the category as if they invented it.
I’ll never forget when they dedicated a minute or two in a keynote a few years ago to how they improved the volume indicator visual overlay in iOS to be less obtrusive like they talked to god himself to figure this out, when Android had that style for years…it was brilliant marketing.
I say all of this as a die hard Apple guy.
RE ....Microsoft isn’t necessarily the most innovative.... Did you know Microsoft copied the idea of product activation from a PATENT and got fined about $300M USD for stealing the IP. Google the words Microsoft's fine for copying product activation idea, Ric Richardson for all the details .....
I’m no Microsoft fanboy, but Microsoft Excel was very innovative for being one of the first graphical spreadsheets, originally written for the classic Mac OS in the mid-1980s before it was available for Windows. It was Excel, not Word or PowerPoint, that fueled the popularity of Microsoft Office in the 1990s, though admittedly I lament the decline of WordPerfect and other word processors. Sure, Excel might not have been the most innovative graphical spreadsheet; that award goes to Lotus Improv for the NeXT computer. However, Excel was a leap ahead of DOS-based spreadsheets like Lotus 1-2-3.
There are other innovative Microsoft products. Visual Basic was a very nice rapid GUI development environment in the 1990s. Windows 95’s interface was the result of a lot of research done on the user experience, and the result was a GUI that not only has persisted (with many modifications, of course) for about 30 years, but has inspired other desktops such as various Linux desktops, and in some ways even influenced later Mac operating systems.
Let’s also not forget Microsoft Research, which has produced a lot of interesting work in operating systems and programming language research.
While I agree that Microsoft Excel is a contender for the best Microsoft product ever, I do not see how one can claim that it was a more "graphical" spreadsheet that MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3, except if by "graphical" you just mean that it was a native Windows application, so you did not have to exit Windows and revert to MS-DOS for having the best user experience, like you would have needed with MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 (whose drivers for various hardware graphics devices would not have worked well or at all under Windows emulation).
When Windows 95 has made MS-DOS obsolete, Excel had the huge advantage of being a native Windows application, so I have switched like everybody else from Lotus 1-2-3 to Microsoft Excel, because switching between Windows and MS-DOS was unpleasant and inconvenient, and because the new Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows did not have any of the advantages of Lotus 1-2-3 for MS-DOS, while being inferior as a Windows program to MS Excel.
Even if I have switched to Excel, for supporting the general Windows features, like nice TrueType fonts and being able to use great amounts of memory in a faster way, due to direct access instead of using extended/expanded memory, at that time Excel did not have any spreadsheet-specific feature, graphic or otherwise, that was better than Lotus 1-2-3.
Despite strongly preferring Windows 95 to MS-DOS, I have always regretted a few MS-DOS programs that had a much better user interface than any Windows program that I have ever seen.
One of those was Lotus 1-2-3. Learning to use MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 was significantly more difficult than learning MS Excel, but once you were an expert the speed of doing any spreadsheet operations using keyboard shortcuts was many times greater than what is possible in Excel with a mouse-based UI, or even with the Excel keyboard shortcuts, which are much less efficient.
While the early Excel was extremely easy to use, that is no longer true about modern Excel or MS Office. Even if I had used for many decades MS Excel and several other spreadsheet applications, when I open now the recent versions of MS Word or MS Excel, I am no longer able to find most of the commands that I need and that I know that they must exist, except after a long random search through various menus, because those no longer have a hierarchical structure whose principles of organization I can discern. This is completely different from older versions of Excel, where one needed no help and no manuals to easily find any required command.
WSL2 is pretty nice as is powershell. Also I haven't done windows development in years but I miss windbg - still don't have anything like it on linux. Also you probably use vscode and people like typescript. playwright and omniparse are pretty useful as well.
And unlike with a lot of companies, they often continue to invest and move their acquisitions forward, such as github.
Microsoft 2025 isn't the same bastard from 1992.
> And unlike with a lot of companies, they often continue to invest and move their acquisitions forward, such as github.
Which helps them win in the enterprise. Not just their acquisitions, but if MS puts out a tech you can be confidently sure they are going to support it for a long time. There's been a few examples contrary to that - Silverlight and their UI frameworks they can't seem to get a handle on, but everything else they've put out exists long-term, and is generally backwards compatible.
There aren't many others that offer that level of stability. We tend to value new and shiny, but non-tech companies don't they want boring and stable, which is why Microsoft won there. Hell, you can still run a lot of apps from the Windows 3.11 era on Windows 11 with minimal fuss. The same can't be said for most other platforms.
Microsoft tech isn't necessarily sexy or exciting, but it checks boxes and is supported for a LONG time, and for a closed source OS, Windows is surprisingly open and configurable (well, used to be anyway - that seems to be going away with 11+)
You're conflating innovation with discovery/invention. Innovation isn't simply "think of/create something new", it includes incremental changes to something, leveraging an existing thing in a new way, etc.
.NET is certainly not "a copy" of Java, it's just Java done correctly ;-)
Incorrectly. Wherever they deviated from Java they messed up. See exceptions, for example: https://mckoder.medium.com/the-achilles-heel-of-c-why-its-ex...
"Incorrect" okay, based on a brand-new-to-C# developer's experience. Sure.
"The Trouble with Checked Exceptions" - https://www.artima.com/articles/the-trouble-with-checked-exc...
In the linked article, Hejlsberg considers adding a new checked exception a breaking change (true), but adding a new thrown exception to not be, because "in a lot of cases, people don't care." I think this is obviously open to debate.
You're conflating "incorrect" with "mistake," no one is saying the C# team forgot to add checked exceptions.
I have a lot of respect for Anders Hejlsberg. But that doesn't mean he is never wrong. Hejlsberg doesn't think anyone would want to recover from exceptions. "There's a bottom level exception handler around their message loop. That handler is just going to bring up a dialog that says what went wrong and continue." Okaayyy... I think we know a bit more about exception handling than that today! Real-world applications often need more sophisticated exception handling strategies.
"Something went wrong."
<insert correlation id>
[no option to continue]
Those are our error messages of today.
And yes, even the brightest can be wrong from time to time or frequently
> Those are our error messages of today.
Is that in your .NET code? Time to switch to Java!
That’s fair. For Microsoft, I think they trailblazed on how to be a global tech monopoly. The dotcom companies (ie Amazon, Google, etc) all followed those footprints to dominate.
By that measure iOS and Android are copies of Windows Mobile, no?
Check out work by Microsoft research. Examples: Z3 solver, project Orleans.
Absurd comment. Microsoft forged the desktop space into what it is today. You clearly don't like them but their contributions and market decisions quickly outpaced Apple and everyone else in the 1990s. They created the dominant PC experience that remains to this day by a large margin.
>What’s cool about the Dutch East India Company and Standard Oil is that there will never be another company like those two. They are true trailblazers in so many ways.
What do you mean by that? I don't understand the comparison, but would like to. Is it about monopoly?
It's just a joke about the ridiculousness that large economy dominating companies can't possibly be replaced and will last forever. Thus, instead of modern companies they give the example of two titans of vintage corporate might (one from several centuries ago and one more recent, just a century ago) are used instead. Ah, Hubris.
Amazon? Google? Meta? Tencent? etc etc etc
Apple and Microsoft (as well as companies like Commodore) were there for personal computing’s birth. Amazon, Google and Meta came far later and didn’t invent their respective industries.
HP sold what they called a "personal computer" in the 1960s, well before Apple and Microsoft came around. It wasn't exactly what we consider to be a personal computer nowadays, but MySpace wasn't exactly what we consider social media to be today either. I'm not sure these things happen in discrete steps like you seem to imply. There is a clear continuum. I think it is quite fair to say, for example, that Meta help define its industry like Microsoft and Apple helped define theirs.
There will never be exact replicas of Apple and Microsoft again, but there undoubtedly will be many companies in the future that we will eventually look back upon in the same way.
You are confusing the first personal computer with the rise of personal computing. Inventing a product isn’t very useful if you don’t invent the product market as well.
Huh? The entire comment is about that rise. Did you stop reading after the first few words?
Amazon did quite literally invent their respective industries - AWS and the cloud?
Google is an ad company that can’t make another significant product to save its life.
Meta under Zuckerberg has been able to stay relevant. But FB is already seen as being for old people.
No Microsoft, no Half-Life.
Funny that they changed their name from 'Micro-Soft' to Microsoft.
Crazy to think how Microsoft went from a small startup to one of the biggest companies in the world. Wonder what the next 50 years will look like.
It's interesting that Microsoft was founded almost exactly a year before Apple (April 1st, 1976). I can't imagine Apple will miss the opportunity to make a big deal out of it.
Windows Recall