Thread: Arise Sir Bill?
View Single Post
Old 26-01-2004, 03:06   #15
Stuart
-
 
Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere
Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone
Posts: 26,546
Stuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver bling
Stuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver bling
Re: Arise Sir Bill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
<Sigh> It was, according to most sources, *1943* when Thomas Watson predicted the world would never need more than about five computers.

It wasn't until over *thirty* years later with the release of the Altair 8800 kit (originally expected to sell maybe a couple of hundred) that the concept of *individual* computers (as opposed to mainframe devices operated from terminals) became a real possibility and that required the invention of the microchip etc before it was viable.

Whilst Xerox may have been short sighted in not realising the potential of the GUI system there were certainly other more stupid ideas...
OK, it was unfair to pick on that particular statement, which could only have been proved wrong later. You are right though. There have been some quite spectacularly stupid decisions made in the history of the computer industry. IBM chosing DOS over CPM because Digital thoughtthe PC would be a short term profit maker (they aren't the exact words, but they did expect the PC to die out quite quickly IIRC). Again, nobody could have predicted the the PC would eventually take off like it did, so that decision could have been right at the time.

Anyway, I was trying to point out the Bill G wasn't being a visionary. He merely copied an idea from Apple that they had copied from Xerox (the copier company, ironically).
Quote:
... Windows (and IE and OE) get exploited more because they have got *so many* holes in because Micro$oft decided that "functionality" was more important than security, which is certainly "An idea that must go down in history as being the most stupid"!
Actually, it is a combination of both. Would those security holes be exploited if Windows was not so heavily used? No, just as they would not be exploited if Microsoft hadn't implemented the features.


Quote:
Personally I think he deserves a jail sentence for the damage he's done to free competition in the OS and software markets.
I agree there. However, Microsoft did triumph over others who had superior OS's and software (Beos, OS/2 and Wordperfect being some examples). How did he do this? Through being a good businessman and marketing his products effectively.

And, Microsoft are less (slightly) restrictive to free competition than (say) Apple.
Stuart is offline   Reply With Quote