On Sat, 14 May 2011 22:11:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/14/2011 6:57 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:12:32 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:10:39 +0200,
wrote:

Eric Stevens writes:

I don't resent him getting rich. I resent his savage business
practices.

There was nothing savage about his business practices. A lot of people like to
parrot urban legends about him, too.

1. Getting m/c vendors to tie the sale of their m/cs to only the one
operating system was a bit of a shock the first time I encountered it.

2. Embedding lying error messages in MS software which activated when
the software was run on competing operating systems (e.g. DR-DOS).

3. Witholding essential developer's software from companies Microsoft
regarded as a competitor. e.g. A new version of Windows and Word had
been on the market for some six months before Word Perfect was
supplied with version of Visual Basic required by the new version of
Windows. That's when Word got asix month lead on Word Perfect.

There are many more similar examples.

There were many software developers who were much more generous and
sharing of their product's innards. I can't bring any to mind because
their companies are not in existence anymore. I'm sure those people
are happy with new occupations.

Microsoft didn't succeed because Gates was a shark. They succeed
because they created products that people wanted to buy. The
shark-like business practices just stopped the remoras from latching
on.


Microsoft also had superior marketing strategies and gave unparalleled
support to developers.

Not if they were trying to develop a product which Microsoft intended
to compete with.

Regards,

Eric Stevens