Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kpne1home · Jul 4, 2004, 11:18 PM

Ok, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but oh well, I have a question about the history of Mac's and PC's/Windows.

How did windows become known as the main OS. I mean if the Mac OS what out When DOS was out and before Windows 95, why didn't people all jump to that right away? Maybe it was because DOS was out before anything, I don't know I wasn't born yet. Well If someone could give me a brief rundown in the clash between These 2 main OS's please do. Thanks.

zachs · 01:19 PM

See Apple-History.com.

[I really can't condone cutting-and-pasting that long an excerpt directly from a website unless you have express permission to copy. You should have linked instead. I replaced the plagiarized text with a link. -- tooki]

thePurpleGiant · Jul 5, 2004, 01:40 AM

Long story (see above)

Short story: Apple had the better computer first, and was very popular. Management decisions, and other issues up the top of Apple caused it to not push on and become even more popular than it was.

Microsoft was far more ruthless, clever with lawyers, and overall cunning and managed to get ahead with an inferior product. By the time Apple's management had gotten back in order, it was too late, and MS dominated the market, and now uses monopolistic (and often illegal) techniques to hold onto their marketshare.

SupahCoolX · Jul 5, 2004, 02:39 AM

As a short addendum: IBM opened up their PC architecture (upon which Microsoft OS's run) to other companies in the 80s, whereas Apple decided to keep everything "in-house." This resulted in a bunch of companies competing for cheaper and cheaper PCs (Dell, HP, Compaq, Packard Bell, etc. etc.). Of course, low price = higher sales.
Then, once everyone had a cheap PC, it was hard to get them to switch to the Mac platform. Not only does a potential switcher have to buy a new computer, but all new software as well. This barrier to entry further strengthens MS's dominance.

JCS · Jul 5, 2004, 08:44 AM

IBM opened up their PC architecture

Boy, that was nice of them, eh?

philzilla · Jul 5, 2004, 08:53 AM

there i was, thinking of ways to slack off today, when i came by this thread. time to dig out Pirates of Silicon Valley!

paully dub · Jul 5, 2004, 09:27 AM

What a silly movie. But I would like to read Paul Freiberger's book, any good?

JCS · Jul 5, 2004, 10:24 AM

"Silly" is a nice way of putting it. That TV miniseries (or was it just one "episode"? I forget.) was terrible, and played fast and loose with the facts. Avoid for anything other than unintentional humor value.

The best account of Apple's history from the start through to around the time of the iMac is the book Infinite Loop, by Michael S. Malone. (Apple Confidential is a a lighter read, in case the depth of Infinite Loop scares you :-)

Toutgood · Jul 5, 2004, 11:28 AM

Infinite Loop is a great read. BTW best computer related book I ever read was Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder . Dated, not Mac related, but still a great read.

blackstar · Jul 5, 2004, 01:43 PM

before win95, there still was windos 1.0-3.11, unstable,uncomplete os'es, 3.11 was the only stable one,but it wasn't a complete Os though, nothing to compare to the original Mac Os,but still people were using it as a complementary to Dos

Big Mac · Jul 5, 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by SupahCoolX:
As a short addendum: IBM opened up their PC architecture (upon which Microsoft OS's run) to other companies in the 80s, whereas Apple decided to keep everything "in-house." This resulted in a bunch of companies competing for cheaper and cheaper PCs (Dell, HP, Compaq, Packard Bell, etc. etc.). Of course, low price = higher sales.
Then, once everyone had a cheap PC, it was hard to get them to switch to the Mac platform. Not only does a potential switcher have to buy a new computer, but all new software as well. This barrier to entry further strengthens MS's dominance.

IBM did not open up the PC architecture - in fact, it fought against the cloners vehemently, before throwing in the towel some years later. It was never IBM's intention to have the clone market, but the cloners found a way to "clean-room" the BIOS chip, which granted their machines compatibility. IBM made no money off of the clone explosion. When Apple noticed what happened to IBM, it became very fearful the same thing would happen to the Mac; thus, it tied the Mac OS very firmly to its ROM and successfully precluded any cloning efforts.

And it is an exaggeration to say that Windows 3.11 was stable - it was actually anything but, and anyone who has seen a GPF before can attest to that fact. Pre-95 Windows was an abomination, and the only reason why it was adopted was PCs were cheap and ubiquitous. People rationalized their decision by saying "It's almost like the Mac," when, in fact, it was probably the worst graphical shell environment ever coded. Windows only became usable with the advent of 95, which means that Apple had eleven years to preempt Microsoft. It failed to do so because of myopic leadership that placed high short-term profit over long-term market saturation. This wasn't a secret to anyone - even Bill Gates apparently offered to help Apple clone the Mac. Apple literally snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, for it could have easily been where MS is today.

JCS · Jul 5, 2004, 02:55 PM

IBM did not open up the PC architecture

Finally...jeez. I guess my post was too subtle...?

SupahCoolX · Jul 5, 2004, 05:30 PM

Ay caramba...
Sorry for my wording not being perfectly clear on the "IBM opening the architecture" thing. My basic point was how the market was flooded with cheap "IBM-compatible" PCs running a Microsoft OS.

Big Mac · Jul 5, 2004, 05:47 PM

Hey, no problem, sorry about stressing these points - it's just that I love Apple history. Oh, as an addendum to my post, Apple's then CEO John Sculley sold the soul of the Mac by granting Gates a world-wide, royalty-free, perpetual right to use the graphical concepts found in the Mac OS. That may well be the worst blunder in business history. If that had not taken place, Apple may have been able to win against MS in court. Of course, Apple was also victimized by terrible ruling in their patent suit against MS.

Daniel_R · Jul 5, 2004, 08:12 PM

Also worth a read:

PBS: Triumph of the Nerds

Gavin · Jul 6, 2004, 12:08 AM

Microsoft's success has entirely to do with psychology and the fact that Gates made an abso-friggin-lutly brilliant business deal with IBM. Practically nobody every heard of Microsoft before windows 95 came out.

It's hard to believe it, but almost no one had a computer on their desk in 1980. Even accountants. Businesses were reluctant to buy them because $1100 seemed like a lot for a 'fancy calculator'.

The IBM PC changed everything.

IBM came to microsoft wanting to buy an operating system for their new pc, they usually would roll their own OS but they wanted to enter the personal computer market fast. Gates licensed to IBM an OS didn't actually have. He then went and borrowed $50,000 from his mom went down the road to a guy that did have an OS and bought it from him. The deal with IBM did not prevent MS from licensing the OS on other companies computers.

The IBM PC was a piece of junk and very expensive but it got a lot of business people to buy a computer. To business management, IBM = computers. It was easy to get your purchase order approved if the box said IBM. Everyone knew that meant serious business. On the other hand they would not buy a machine called an Apple which had a rainbow on the box. Your average MBA in Manhattan thought of that as some gay hippy california thing.

A short time later the pc's BIOS was broken and other companies started selling computers that could run the same OS as the IBM, known as "PC compatible". People snapped then up because they were the same as the IBM but cost less. For you PC to be "PC compatible" you had to license the OS from microsoft.

It's the IBM name that sold the PCs, not the operating system. In 1980 there were 50 or more companies selling computers each with it's own OS. Packard Bell, kaypro, Tandy, and Digital sold a lot of computers to business because they sounded serious and business like. Apple and other computers with reps as 'only good as toys' like Atari did not. Computers that were 'IBM compatible' sold even more.

Because so many companies were buying IBM clones you could sell compiled software for the IBM and have a much bigger market. So the IBM clones were seen as having "more software" and since other companies were buying them that made it safe for your company to buy one. It just snow-balled.

Microsoft and it's OS simply came along for the ride. Also remember that the Apple II's OS was not much easier to use than DOS, not sucky but not easy. By the time the Mac came out the PC was already dominant.