5 ms·

Virtually all of it was IBM, both because they allowed other vendors to release PC-compatible hardware and because they did not negotiate an exclusive license f

by swift 10y ago

Virtually all of it was IBM, both because they allowed other vendors to release PC-compatible hardware and because they did not negotiate an exclusive license for MS-DOS, allowing Microsoft to sell it to other companies. I frankly can't see giving Gates any credit for the open PC ecosystem at all; his role was pure opportunism.

oldmanjay 10y ago
It's hard to make a case against Bill Gates being a massive player in the astounding success of personal computing without delving deeply into emotional reasoning, so I'm curious what feeling you have that justifies your stance. For instance, perhaps you feel having the appropriate moral tone to a vision is the requirement to deserve credit for achievement?
- nixos 10y ago
  >It's hard to make a case against Bill Gates being a massive player in the astounding success of personal computing without delving deeply into emotional reasoning The only thing he really did was not get in the way of making billions. If not for MS, other companies would have filled its place (DR-DOS?) If not for IBM creating and then opening up the PC market?
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    If you believe that the only thing Bill Gates did was stay out of the way, you've clearly not read even a cursory survey of the history of computing. It's so dismissive I'm a little agape.
- swift 10y ago
  I think you're reading something into my comment I didn't intend. Gates and Microsoft generally did a lot of important work that made the open PC ecosystem a long term success, but IBM is the one that created that ecosystem, and Gates took advantage of that opportunity. edit: Looking back on my original comment, I can see where I should've phrased things better. When I said I couldn't see giving Gates any credit for the open PC ecosystem, I should've said "the creation of" the open PC ecosystem. We may still disagree, but at least now we'll be on the same page about where the points of disagreement are. =)

by swift 10y ago

oldmanjay 10y ago

It's hard to make a case against Bill Gates being a massive player in the astounding success of personal computing without delving deeply into emotional reasoning, so I'm curious what feeling you have that justifies your stance. For instance, perhaps you feel having the appropriate moral tone to a vision is the requirement to deserve credit for achievement?

nixos 10y ago
>It's hard to make a case against Bill Gates being a massive player in the astounding success of personal computing without delving deeply into emotional reasoning The only thing he really did was not get in the way of making billions. If not for MS, other companies would have filled its place (DR-DOS?) If not for IBM creating and then opening up the PC market?
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  If you believe that the only thing Bill Gates did was stay out of the way, you've clearly not read even a cursory survey of the history of computing. It's so dismissive I'm a little agape.
swift 10y ago
I think you're reading something into my comment I didn't intend. Gates and Microsoft generally did a lot of important work that made the open PC ecosystem a long term success, but IBM is the one that created that ecosystem, and Gates took advantage of that opportunity. edit: Looking back on my original comment, I can see where I should've phrased things better. When I said I couldn't see giving Gates any credit for the open PC ecosystem, I should've said "the creation of" the open PC ecosystem. We may still disagree, but at least now we'll be on the same page about where the points of disagreement are. =)