3 ms·
> Even in the early days they sold BASIC and DOS before they'd even written a line of code Microsoft didn't create DOS
by strictnein 8y ago
> Even in the early days they sold BASIC and DOS before they'd even written a line of code
Microsoft didn't create DOS
- heartbreak 8y agoBut they did sell it before they'd written a line of code.
- laumars 8y agoNo, of course they didn't. But that doesn't mean they didn't still modify the codebase of the DOS (I cant recall what it was called) that they bought. Besides, my point clearly wasn't who originally authored MS-DOS but rather that MS didn't even have a product to sell -let along a well engineered one- back when they first visited IBM.
- einr 8y agoMS didn't even have a product to sell Microsoft BASIC was the original Microsoft product, written by Paul Allen and Bill Gates in 1975. It was already wildly successful and the default microcomputer BASIC dialect by the time they had talks with IBM. MS-DOS was originally 86-DOS, née QDOS, by Seattle Computer Products.
- laumars 8y agoI was talking about Altair BASIC, Micro-Soft (as they were then called) first product and it was pitched to Ed Roberts (MITS founder) to run on his Altair before any code had been written on their (Micro-Soft's) BASIC interpreter. So I was absolutely correct to state they didn't have a product to sell there. And yes, MS-DOS was originally a SCP product - however you've left out the important part: when Microsoft visited IBMs headquarters to sell their disk operating system after Digital Research struck out with IBM (though accounts regarding what happened there differ wildly depending on who you ask), Microsoft did not have a CP/M nor DOS clone at that time which is why they approached Tim Patterson of SCP and later bought the OS for a pittance compared to what Microsoft then licenced it for. Thus once again I'm completely correct to say Microsoft didn't have a product to sell. I don't know why you and the former poster have gotten so hung up on who originally created MS-DOS since I was only discussing it's licensing to IBM. But hopefully you now understand the point I was making.