4 ms·

Before Windows XP being massively popular it was Windows 98 being massively popular - up until Service Pack 2 (IIRC) the main competitor to Windows XP was Windo

Before Windows XP being massively popular it was Windows 98 being massively popular - up until Service Pack 2 (IIRC) the main competitor to Windows XP was Windows 98 and people would simply not move off it. There isn't really a universe where Windows XP is a failure with Windows 98's popularity - there wasn't much of a real choice from people who eventually had to abandon Windows 98 outside of Windows XP and Microsoft was pushing Windows desktops hard as their primary focus at the time. Of course Windows 98 owe part of its popularity to Windows 95. Around Windows 95 was the last time you could say that other desktop OSes had a chance to become a de-facto standard, but IIRC the only desktop competitor at the time was OS/2 and IBM shat the bed on that one (BeOS also tried but it was too little too late and Linux at the time was a regression from both DOS and Windows UX-wise... assuming anyone knew about it). Microsoft's sketchy deals with PC vendors where they had to pay an OS license for every PC sold regardless of the PC being sold with a Microsoft OS or not didn't help competitors much.

pjmlp 7y ago
Like children, it needs two to have a sketchy deal. If enough OEMs had decided to go their own way, the license deals would have been changed. However they saw it as convenient as well. As counter example, Android OEMs couldn't care less for Google's roadmap and updates. OS/2 was not an option for most consumers when I had to pay extra 500 euros on top of an already expensive 1500 euro 386SX computer, on a country where the minimum wage was around 300 euros after taxes. Naturally I converted the escudos into euros. As for BeOS, the only thing I got from it was the R5 demo disk and the developer book that I eventually found out by accident on a technical library. It wasn't really on sale over here.
- projektfu 7y ago
  That’s an incredibly high price. Of course, 1994 was before the Euro, but I’m assuming there’s a conversion factor you’re using. That being said, I don’t remember the exact price of OS/2 Warp but it was in the neighborhood of $100 and there were lots of specials to get it in peoples’ hands. IBM was first to market and had software to run windows 16-bit apps. I used OS/2 in college until the CS classes requiring 32-bit windows software that didn’t have OS/2 equivalents. (e.g. Borland C++ Builder) Microsoft won the software chicken-egg problem.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    That was 1991, OS/2 1.x was the current version, with version 2.0 being previewed in magazines. The 500 euro difference was for an IBM PC with MCA architecture with OS/2 instead of MS-DOS/Windows 3.0. PC prices were still incredible high during the 90's, everyone was buying them on credit. 2002 was the first time I managed to buy a PC without credit, thanks to a very nice startup salary during the .com wave.
    - projektfu 7y ago
      Yeah, I remember the constant begging to upgrade from our C64 to something faster, culminating in a Mac LC in 1992-3 ($2500 with monitor?)
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  OEMs had no choice, it was either that deal or they wouldn't be able to sell Microsoft OS licenses at all - this was something Microsoft did since the DOS days and they took advantage of their position as the #1 OS provider for IBM PC and the clones. A PC that cannot run DOS and later Windows would be worthless.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Even small shops on Mafia controlled neighborhoods have a choice. My first PC was bought with DR-DOS 5.0 on it, and at high school we were using a mix of MS-DOS 3.3 and PC-DOS. Plus the market for Atari and Amiga was still kind of strong, before the respective companies started going astray with their business decisions. And to make it actual, most Web devs have a choice, yet they decide to put Google in power with their Chrome-only focus in name of convenience.
    - badsectoracula 7y ago
      I think you should read on MS-DOS's per-processor licensing which was the cheapest one: it wasn't technically the only available scheme and didn't technically forbid other OSes, it was just the cheapest by far option, especially for larger PC manufacturers who were the ones that would popularize the OS (some small corner shop using DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS wouldn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things).
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Lets not blame Microsoft alone for OEMs having the easiest route out, it takes two to dance. Poor little OEMs, specially the ones that were installing pirate copies, so they weren't bound to any Microsoft requirement to start with. Just like they do nowadays with Android updates, producing new handsets with 2 - 3 versions behind, to avoid new development costs, without any kind of updates afterwards, regardless of Treble compliance.
        badsectoracula 7y ago
gandalfian 7y ago
Don't forget windows 2000. For some the peak of Microsoft os's followed by decline.

pjmlp 7y ago

Like children, it needs two to have a sketchy deal. If enough OEMs had decided to go their own way, the license deals would have been changed. However they saw it as convenient as well. As counter example, Android OEMs couldn't care less for Google's roadmap and updates. OS/2 was not an option for most consumers when I had to pay extra 500 euros on top of an already expensive 1500 euro 386SX computer, on a country where the minimum wage was around 300 euros after taxes. Naturally I converted the escudos into euros. As for BeOS, the only thing I got from it was the R5 demo disk and the developer book that I eventually found out by accident on a technical library. It wasn't really on sale over here.

projektfu 7y ago
That’s an incredibly high price. Of course, 1994 was before the Euro, but I’m assuming there’s a conversion factor you’re using. That being said, I don’t remember the exact price of OS/2 Warp but it was in the neighborhood of $100 and there were lots of specials to get it in peoples’ hands. IBM was first to market and had software to run windows 16-bit apps. I used OS/2 in college until the CS classes requiring 32-bit windows software that didn’t have OS/2 equivalents. (e.g. Borland C++ Builder) Microsoft won the software chicken-egg problem.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  That was 1991, OS/2 1.x was the current version, with version 2.0 being previewed in magazines. The 500 euro difference was for an IBM PC with MCA architecture with OS/2 instead of MS-DOS/Windows 3.0. PC prices were still incredible high during the 90's, everyone was buying them on credit. 2002 was the first time I managed to buy a PC without credit, thanks to a very nice startup salary during the .com wave.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    Yeah, I remember the constant begging to upgrade from our C64 to something faster, culminating in a Mac LC in 1992-3 ($2500 with monitor?)
badsectoracula 7y ago
OEMs had no choice, it was either that deal or they wouldn't be able to sell Microsoft OS licenses at all - this was something Microsoft did since the DOS days and they took advantage of their position as the #1 OS provider for IBM PC and the clones. A PC that cannot run DOS and later Windows would be worthless.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Even small shops on Mafia controlled neighborhoods have a choice. My first PC was bought with DR-DOS 5.0 on it, and at high school we were using a mix of MS-DOS 3.3 and PC-DOS. Plus the market for Atari and Amiga was still kind of strong, before the respective companies started going astray with their business decisions. And to make it actual, most Web devs have a choice, yet they decide to put Google in power with their Chrome-only focus in name of convenience.
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    I think you should read on MS-DOS's per-processor licensing which was the cheapest one: it wasn't technically the only available scheme and didn't technically forbid other OSes, it was just the cheapest by far option, especially for larger PC manufacturers who were the ones that would popularize the OS (some small corner shop using DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS wouldn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things).
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Lets not blame Microsoft alone for OEMs having the easiest route out, it takes two to dance. Poor little OEMs, specially the ones that were installing pirate copies, so they weren't bound to any Microsoft requirement to start with. Just like they do nowadays with Android updates, producing new handsets with 2 - 3 versions behind, to avoid new development costs, without any kind of updates afterwards, regardless of Treble compliance.
      - badsectoracula 7y ago

gandalfian 7y ago

Don't forget windows 2000. For some the peak of Microsoft os's followed by decline.