Bright lights shining upwards obscures the stars...

Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
A retrospective on 26 years of Microsoft in my life
Jeff with Leif and Piano
jbailey
It's interesting to think about Bill Gates retiring. When I think back to how much Microsoft has brought us over the years, both happiness and grief, it's a bit of a happy/sad end to an era for me.

Microsoft is what saved us from the TRS-80, and brought us into a world where clone hardware drove prices down to where everyone could afford them. MS-DOS may have been a bad rip off of CP/M and Unix, but to business operations brought us the ability to bring computing power right down to the desk and generally got out of the way. Dos had the neat ability to have TSRs that could deliver waiting applications at a keystroke (remember Sidekick?) Windows 386 and 3.0 brought us preemptive multitasking for DOS apps that weren't written for that in mind, and brought us the first environment the mass market had seen where any manufacturer could write drivers to a known programming interface and bring their hardware to the world. They brought us a world where hardware innovation was bringing crazy new things to us that had only been possible in Sci-Fi movies before. My first voice-recognition system on the computer was in 1990. =)

Windows 95 pushed that even further. No longer were drivers crazy TSRs, but actually loaded into the control panel with standard was of using them for established services such as Networking and Sound. For everything else, the model was extensible so that if you had a neat idea, you could bring it out to the world. I remember installing TwinBridge at work so that people could type in double-wide Chinese characters, despite the OS not being intended for that in the slightest.

Windows 98 brought us games that were better than we were seeing in DOS. DirectX and DirectSound were finally providing a good enough abstraction on top of the hardware that it was easier for authors to code to that than to code right to your Adlib card and whatever display adapter you had (were we using S3s yet, then?)

But that seems to have been the top point of their reign. At this point, as a user I was now so far from the guts of the machine, I no longer could easily tinker. I'd once coded in Z80 asm and 8086 asm to write little hacks, but Windows 98 was getting to the opinionated software stage: There were things you just couldn't do, for no reason other than the designers at Microsoft didn't think it was important.

I realise I'm not the usual mass-market type, but now the system that had been such a source of inspiration was now becoming a barrier to trying new ideas.

I had started playing with Linux in 1995, but 1998 had started to use it as my main machine at home. I had a roommate who had a dumb cheap machine that was slaved off of my main machine so that he could play Medievia all day and night. Setting up this networking, and the on-demand ISDN dialing was trivial to do under Linux, and nearly impossible under the Windows systems of the time.

The only thing one could say for FVWM95 at the time was that it was better than twm. We suffered through Enlightenment, said hello to wine, and joined an online community of people who'd all come together from various places in order to be free to play with the systems we had.

Microsoft became steadily less relevant to my day to day computing. My girlfriend (now wife) suffered through early incarnations of MS Word for windows 2.0 under Wine because it was still easier than teaching her emacs. And steadily, the system got better until we could honestly look at our family members and tell them that if they wanted to run Windows that was fine, but please don't call me about it.

We need to both say thank-you to Microsoft and learn from it. Microsoft made a business model of bringing us the technology we craved as geeks, and that society wanted to play with and integrated into our lives. Microsoft also taught us what it means to be the dominant player. For most of us, I suspect it was our only view into the world where a single player dominates and strives to cut down its competition. It's easy to romanticise the small business owner, and just as easy to forget that just about every small business owner wants to be a millionaire and a large business owner.

We need to remember that the pretty fancy interfaces can be as much about helping people do things as keeping them from doing things. We need to demand the freedom to tinker with our software and our devices, even if we choose to never do so. And after all that, we need to be able to take our data from a device, and take it to somewhere else. I think ultimately, this is what Microsoft has taught us. As we look for new companies to deliver us greater and shinier technology, this is a lesson we need to keep close at hand.

Microsoft didn't "save us" from anything. They made a lacklustre product that people settled for. If IBM hadn't taken their product, we'd probably have had a risc-based 801 cpu in the first IBM PC, and a much better OS. Besides that, Macs or Amigas might have become the defacto standard instead of PCs. The world would be MUCH better without microsoft, almost whichever way it panned out. Certainly much better without their criminal activities.

I think Apple is a worse disaster than Microsoft, hindered only by the fact that Jobs doesn't have the ability to teach a second in command. Luckily, when he dies from his cancer, Apple will go back to tanking like it did the first time without him.

Certainly their criminal activities over the last 10 years have led the industry to almost complete disaster, but those same activities also pushed us out of our complacency, leading to mass recognition of Linux and other Free and Open Source software.

There's also no reason to believe that IBM would've behaved any different, with the exception that they didn't have the drive to push mass-market adoption of their machines. IBM in the early days showed more signs of wanting to control than Microsoft did (Look at the original lawsuits and such around Compaq versus IBM)

I've never understood why Commodore products managed to get ousted. I didn't grow up with the C=64, but my school certainly had them, as did many of my friends. With that type of reach, they should've been able to be at least as successful as Apple was. Looking at the wikipedia article, it seems like the management mistakes would've crippled them regardless of their competition.


Agreed on Commodore; they seemed to have almost no marketing skill at all with the Amiga.

With the VIC-20, C64, etc., it's very strange that they didn't carry on the brand, too. In a sense, I like that they didn't though, as they're not compatible, and it would have been a lie.

The C128 was their big attempt at bringing forward the C64's legacy. Those failed miserably, though. They were a little complex, with different modes, and not compatible ENOUGH with the C64. I'm not sure if they actually did 80 columns without a monitor, and I think the world was holding out for 16-bit by then, even if no one put it in those terms.

Recovering from that by buying the Amiga was undoubtedly a great decision. They could have easily revolutionised (founded?) the PC market with Amigas and I think we'd all have been better off if they had. This is the same reason I'd have much preferred to see Macs win the PC war (if it can be called a war) -- PCs spent years catching up (and STILL aren't fully caught up in some respects) with things that Amigas and Macs did years ago.

But maybe the point is that Commodore, Apple, IBM (both with PCs and OS/2) all made contributions to our expectations, and so something of that innovation lives on, even if only in the fact that we're not entirely happy with current offerings ;)

You are viewing jbailey