mikeq wrote:
MS gave me my start in life as a programmer, the first development tool I used was MS Access and I used that to learn about databases and coding, it was readily available and relatively cheap. If it hadn't been for its availability and ease of use I probably would not be where I am today. Today I do not use any MS development tools, I use Borland's Delphi for Windows applications and I use PHP/MySQL/Oracle for browser based corporate applications. I do not use MS development tools because I do not like their development tools and it has nothing to do with my view on the company.
I like the company and I wish I had been as lucky as Bill Gates, yes it was luck, right place, right time and he took the risk. The way they do business is the way they have always done business, when they bought the complete rights to DOS for $50,000(or whatever the sum was) which then found its way into every PC ever produced they made a packet. So how can the man at the top even consider doing business another way when buying up the competition has worked from day one.
What is sad is that people will condone the continuance of business practices that when left unchecked ultimately have a very bad effect on a given industry. Especially when it's simply because that company or corp makes things easy for he or she. Nobody has a problem with ones right to make some dosh, but there is a reason that there are laws aimed at leveling the playing field in a given industry.
A good book on the IBM story is 'The fall of big blue' (I think) can't remember the author but it makes interesting reading. There is also a good bit in it on the IBM/Microsoft partnership to produce a GUI, which eventually became OS2 and Windows and why the partnership did not work. So why did Windows become successful and OS2 fail miserably? they both came from the same egg, hhmmm.
Perhaps it has something to do with momentum and the fact that IBM seemed to treat
OS2 like a stepchild. OS2 was not aggressively marketed or supported. However, many believe it's every bit as good, if not better.
I think it is so easy for other companies to blame Microsoft for their own failings rather than taking a closer look at home, if their products where really so wonderful I don't think MS would have the 'monopoly' that it does.
A perfect example is Netscape and the idea that they needed to completely re-write the code for the browser. What is Netscape 5 (in Linux) and 6 (in Windows) is completely different code base than version 4. It cost them three years.
But, companies with monopolies are well know for doing things that are contrary to the idea of fair business practices. To simply say that MS has a monopoly becuase they are creating good products is ludicrous and ignorant.
My main goal in life is to make money so that I can provide for my family and I am comfortable, to do that I am lucky enough to do what I enjoy the most and that is software development. If people wish to give away their software then that is their choice, I however want to make money from things that I create or improve upon, and you never know maybe I'll be running the next Microsoft.
While I agree that taking care of oneself and family is a fair and respectable quest, if you support the business practice of MS, I certainly hope you don't become the next MS.
Besides, if MS get's it the way they want, it won't be long before we're plunged into another dark age.
BDKR