6 ms·

The IBM comparison is really apt. IBM hasn't died, they used to dominate like Microsoft, with all the same underhanded tactics, and they eventually came around.

The IBM comparison is really apt. IBM hasn't died, they used to dominate like Microsoft, with all the same underhanded tactics, and they eventually came around. There's also the "culture wars" to consider, where many (myself included) revered IBM for superior alternatives (OS/2), while old timers would just shake their head at anyone trusting them. Now, I shake my head at anyone trusting Microsoft, although they've tamped down their rabid attacks on open source and Linux, and they do offer some things that aren't complete garbage.

MaysonL 11y ago
I used to work with a guy who used to be the DP VP [what's called CIO these days] at the only Fortune 100 firm that didn't have a corporate IBM mainframe (although a subsidiary or two did, IIRC). IBM tried a number of times to get him fired (such tactics as golfing partners of the CEO saying that he was really incompetent, etc.). They played hardball, and probably still do, when they can.
scholia 11y ago
IBM at its peak was much more dominant than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft -- thanks to IBM (via PC DOS and Basic) -- eventually became the IBM of software. But Intel became the IBM of processors, Cisco the IBM of routers, Google the IBM of the web, and so on. IBM was the IBM of everything. Incidentally, Microsoft co-developed OS/2 and there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- IBM tried; (2) you couldn't get software houses to write programs for OS/2 -- except maybe Lotus; and (3) you couldn't get end users to install it. You had to install a whole OS to run OS/2, but Windows installed just like any other DOS program, and you could delete it if you decided you didn't like it.
- yuhong 11y ago
  Yea, this OS/2 2.0 fiasco used to my favorite topic, and I have plenty of bad things to say about MS's behavior there.
  - scholia 11y ago
    Windows was selling well while OS/2 sales were, to quote Gates, "dismal", and Microsoft couldn't afford to support a failing project. (IBM may have had more programmers on OS/2 than Microsoft had programmers.) Thanks to hiring Dave Cutler and staff from DEC, Microsoft could see a way out. However, IBM rejected the plan to move to NT as OS/2 3.0, and the two companies formally divorced. After that, IBM did its best to kill Microsoft. (One IBM senior manager told me: "We're going to burn Bill's butt.") Bear in mind that in 1990, when Windows 3 came out, IBM had an annual turnover of $69 billion and Microsoft's turnover was $0.8 billion. It was a giant monopolist against a tiny start-up. So, given the context, what was underhand about Microsoft's behavior, and what should it have done? How did IBM's 1991 development of Workplace OS for PowerPC -- intended to cut both Microsoft and Intel out of the PC market -- fit into the strategy?
    - yuhong 11y ago
      I am also talking about a few years later, up to the "Chicago"/Win95 period when the attacks really got nasty.
      - scholia 11y ago
        A period when IBM was spending more than $1 billion a year on OS/2 and WorkPlace OS to try to kill Microsoft? A period when IBM formed an alliance with Apple and Motorola to create a PC Reference Platform to try to kill both Microsoft and Intel? Up to the point in 1995 where IBM spent $3.5 billion on Lotus and used SmartSuite bundling to try to kill Microsoft Office? Microsoft's turnover had grown to $5.3 billion in 1995, but IBM's turnover was $72 billion, and it was still a brutal monopolist targeting a much smaller company.
        hga 11y ago
        Indeed, people like me were cheering Microsoft back in that period. I started programming in 1978, on IBM systems, and they were indeed "a brutal monopolist", probably feared more than Microsoft has ever been. Sure, during the early-mid '90s Microsoft had sharp elbows and was looking out for its own interests, but those also just happened to coincide with ours. IBM was big, stupid and much more dangerous, UNIX(TM) was horribly fragmented (one of the core competencies I developed in the early '80s was porting software between different versions of it, and see The Unix Haters Handbook publishing in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook (disclaimer, Simson is a friend)). GNU/the FSF was doing worthwhile stuff, but was and still is hanging fire on a kernel, the BSD porting efforts had been crippled by the '92-3 AT&T lawsuit, Linux was started from scratch in 1991 and immature, while NT was developed by well funded top notch experienced people (at least back then it was very rare if not unheard of for someone to develop more than one operating system, the process was so onerous) and was a great hope for a lot of us. In the mid '90s I developed or took part in developing several very solid systems using it, and I believe it's TCO and maintainability exceeded UNIX(TM) during that period. Unfortunately, Microsoft started fumbling the ball about 3-4 years after NT's release (on or after the first Service Pack of NT 3.5 or more likely 3.51 as I recall), NT 4 was conceptually hopeless by moving graphics into the kernel, "and the rest is history".

MaysonL 11y ago

I used to work with a guy who used to be the DP VP [what's called CIO these days] at the only Fortune 100 firm that didn't have a corporate IBM mainframe (although a subsidiary or two did, IIRC). IBM tried a number of times to get him fired (such tactics as golfing partners of the CEO saying that he was really incompetent, etc.). They played hardball, and probably still do, when they can.

scholia 11y ago

IBM at its peak was much more dominant than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft -- thanks to IBM (via PC DOS and Basic) -- eventually became the IBM of software. But Intel became the IBM of processors, Cisco the IBM of routers, Google the IBM of the web, and so on. IBM was the IBM of everything. Incidentally, Microsoft co-developed OS/2 and there were only three problems with it: (1) you couldn't sell PCs running OS/2 -- IBM tried; (2) you couldn't get software houses to write programs for OS/2 -- except maybe Lotus; and (3) you couldn't get end users to install it. You had to install a whole OS to run OS/2, but Windows installed just like any other DOS program, and you could delete it if you decided you didn't like it.

yuhong 11y ago
Yea, this OS/2 2.0 fiasco used to my favorite topic, and I have plenty of bad things to say about MS's behavior there.
- scholia 11y ago
  Windows was selling well while OS/2 sales were, to quote Gates, "dismal", and Microsoft couldn't afford to support a failing project. (IBM may have had more programmers on OS/2 than Microsoft had programmers.) Thanks to hiring Dave Cutler and staff from DEC, Microsoft could see a way out. However, IBM rejected the plan to move to NT as OS/2 3.0, and the two companies formally divorced. After that, IBM did its best to kill Microsoft. (One IBM senior manager told me: "We're going to burn Bill's butt.") Bear in mind that in 1990, when Windows 3 came out, IBM had an annual turnover of $69 billion and Microsoft's turnover was $0.8 billion. It was a giant monopolist against a tiny start-up. So, given the context, what was underhand about Microsoft's behavior, and what should it have done? How did IBM's 1991 development of Workplace OS for PowerPC -- intended to cut both Microsoft and Intel out of the PC market -- fit into the strategy?
  - yuhong 11y ago
    I am also talking about a few years later, up to the "Chicago"/Win95 period when the attacks really got nasty.
    - scholia 11y ago
      A period when IBM was spending more than $1 billion a year on OS/2 and WorkPlace OS to try to kill Microsoft? A period when IBM formed an alliance with Apple and Motorola to create a PC Reference Platform to try to kill both Microsoft and Intel? Up to the point in 1995 where IBM spent $3.5 billion on Lotus and used SmartSuite bundling to try to kill Microsoft Office? Microsoft's turnover had grown to $5.3 billion in 1995, but IBM's turnover was $72 billion, and it was still a brutal monopolist targeting a much smaller company.
      - hga 11y ago
        Indeed, people like me were cheering Microsoft back in that period. I started programming in 1978, on IBM systems, and they were indeed "a brutal monopolist", probably feared more than Microsoft has ever been. Sure, during the early-mid '90s Microsoft had sharp elbows and was looking out for its own interests, but those also just happened to coincide with ours. IBM was big, stupid and much more dangerous, UNIX(TM) was horribly fragmented (one of the core competencies I developed in the early '80s was porting software between different versions of it, and see The Unix Haters Handbook publishing in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook (disclaimer, Simson is a friend)). GNU/the FSF was doing worthwhile stuff, but was and still is hanging fire on a kernel, the BSD porting efforts had been crippled by the '92-3 AT&T lawsuit, Linux was started from scratch in 1991 and immature, while NT was developed by well funded top notch experienced people (at least back then it was very rare if not unheard of for someone to develop more than one operating system, the process was so onerous) and was a great hope for a lot of us. In the mid '90s I developed or took part in developing several very solid systems using it, and I believe it's TCO and maintainability exceeded UNIX(TM) during that period. Unfortunately, Microsoft started fumbling the ball about 3-4 years after NT's release (on or after the first Service Pack of NT 3.5 or more likely 3.51 as I recall), NT 4 was conceptually hopeless by moving graphics into the kernel, "and the rest is history".