All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Who is to blame?

<< < (3/4) > >>

lazygamer:
Oh wait, they never divulged the purpose of the buisness. So it's also IBM's fault too. Had they only told them why they had come. I mean im sure Gary could of contacted them within a day, a single day is hardly much time.

lazygamer:

quote:So great was the pin-striper's confidence in IBM that
         they were prepared to buy into MS-DOS, even though this
         awkward and archaic method of running a computer was clearly
         inspired more by the past than by any vision for the future.
--- End quote ---


Awkward and archaic? Well maybe to a n00b, but don't command line systems offer the highest capability for resource and power efficiency, due to their simplicity?

lazygamer:
WOW! Great article! One thing that seems wierd though, how is it Microsoft suceeded through pure luck?  If there was 1000 other Microsoft wannabes who died, then I can understand. Problem is, MS was likely more of an exception then a rule. Most companies are COMPETENT! It seems wierd that ONE out of ONE(instead of one 1 of 1000) can pull off all this luck.

badkarma:
not if it's a single user, single tasking OS with a horrible command line interface .....

lazygamer:

quote:not if it's a single user, single tasking OS with a horrible command line interface .....
--- End quote ---


Ok, but if it was DOS capable of using modern technology or ancient technology, multi-tasking, multi-user piece of technology totally untouched by Microsoft? Then would it be the best you can get for simplicity, power, fixability, and stability?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version