5 ms·

There's a third reason why the DR/IBM deal didn't work out: CP-M/86 was extremely delayed. The reason why SCP QDOS even existed was that SCP had an S-100 machin

There's a third reason why the DR/IBM deal didn't work out: CP-M/86 was extremely delayed. The reason why SCP QDOS even existed was that SCP had an S-100 machine with an 8086 in it and there was no OS that could run it. Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. [0] This also allowed them to strong-arm Apple into making a few licensing deals that would kill all the "look and feel" shenanigans later into that decade.

marktangotango 4y ago
> They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Commodore 64 owners may have a different opinion.... :P
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  So would some Apple II owners. I don’t think MS BASIC was the best in the business, but it was the most ubiquitous. If only Woz had been willing to add floating point support to his BASIC. He was perfectly capable of it! Would’ve saved Apple a lot of heartache later.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Why was Woz unwilling to add floating point support?
    - laumars 4y ago
      He wasn’t unwilling. The story I heard was that it’s the usual tail of time constraints. It was quicker to license Microsoft BASIC than it was to add floating points to Integer BASIC.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  c64 Basic was licensed from Microsoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC
- guenthert 4y ago
  Not sure about that. C64 BASIC was not all that impressive even then. Mid-eighties, those interested in BASIC programming on the C64 preferred Simon's BASIC.
- timbit42 4y ago
  The 6502 version of MS BASIC wasn't as good as the 8080 / Z80 version.
- themadturk 4y ago
  I have heard that Commodore BASIC was MS BASIC 2.0, so somewhat behind the times when it came out.
  - lproven 4y ago
    It was. This was because Commodore was trying to keep the cost of the machine down, and BASIC 2 (along with the Commodore "kernal" [sic], the closest thing the computer had to an OS) fitted into an 8 kB ROM. CBM BASIC 2 was terrible. It didn't support any of the C64's excellent (for the time) sound and graphics. It didn't have structured command (IF... THEN... ELSE, REPEAT... UNTIL, WHILE... WEND etc.) or named procedures or local variables or anything. But it was small. This terrible BASIC is why most of the world became convinced that BASIC was a bad programming language. Other contemporaneous 8-bit home computers had much better BASICs, notably the Acorn 8-bits, but also Sinclair, Oric and others. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html
laumars 4y ago
> Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Nope and nope. The “best” is subjective but BBC Basic (as seen on Acorn BBC Micros) was fscking awesome. Far better than Microsoft BASIC in my opinion. Locomotive BASIC then took the BBC BASIC dialect and improved upon it. Amstrad shipped that on their CPC 464 models. There was a BASIC for the Atari ST I’ve used too which was pretty awesome. Microsoft BASIC might have been widely used but it was neither universal nor the “best”.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Well the obvious context here when talking about IBM's PC deals was "best" 1) "in the US" (eliminating BBC Basic), and 2) "at the time" (Atari ST happened after the IBM PC).
  - laumars 4y ago
    Their context wasn’t about IBM buying BASIC, it was about IBM buying DOS from Microsoft. Plus given IBM was a global brand it seems a bit self-congratulatory to argue that only US-developed BASICs count anyway. However even taking your comment at face value, it’s still not true. There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.
    - WorldMaker 4y ago
      IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Contextually here "best" also means "best fit for IBM to buy". Global brand or not, IBM certainly had US biases: a US headquarters, more engineers and managers in the US making purchasing decisions. I can't argue with you on the subjective quality of other BASICs, and I can't speak to what IBM "wanted" other than what we know they eventually purchased. Their "best fit" may have indeed been entirely "pragmatic" things like "ubiquity" or "cheap" rather than "best technically". > There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. Citation needed on "plenty", I think. On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.
themadturk 4y ago
Microsoft also had FORTRAN and COBOL (and maybe Pascal? Not sure). They were known for their languages.
- lproven 4y ago
  This is true but only a partial picture. MS-DOS was Microsoft's first OS. In the early days (roughly, the 1970s) Microsoft only produced programming languages. So, yes, the company was known for it, but only inasmuch as it was known for nothing else.
lproven 4y ago
> They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business Given the whole thread that spawned from this, I have to say that I think this was poorly-worded. MS did not have the "best" BASIC by any measure except by one: it had the smallest BASIC in the business. The early MS BASIC releases ran in 4 kB or so, and even later on after it expanded, it still ran in 8kB. Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Monty Davidoff were famous for fitting a lot of code into a very small amount of space. That was the basis of the former two's extraordinarily successful careers. But "best"? No. By 1981, Acorn offered BBC BASIC, a drastically better language by any measure: structured programming, local variables inside named procedures, inline assembler and more. But it needed 16kB of ROM: a quarter of the memory map of an 8-bit CPU. > and everyone licensed from them already. "Everybody" did not license it. AFAICR Atari and Apple didn't; across the ocean, Sinclair and Acorn and Tangerine didn't. But yes, MS BASIC was dominant on the early American 8-bit machines: it was on Commodore, and I think on Tandy, and of course on the IBM PC right in the ROM if you didn't have disk drives.

marktangotango 4y ago

> They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Commodore 64 owners may have a different opinion.... :P

KerrAvon 4y ago
So would some Apple II owners. I don’t think MS BASIC was the best in the business, but it was the most ubiquitous. If only Woz had been willing to add floating point support to his BASIC. He was perfectly capable of it! Would’ve saved Apple a lot of heartache later.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Why was Woz unwilling to add floating point support?
  - laumars 4y ago
    He wasn’t unwilling. The story I heard was that it’s the usual tail of time constraints. It was quicker to license Microsoft BASIC than it was to add floating points to Integer BASIC.
zabzonk 4y ago
c64 Basic was licensed from Microsoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC
guenthert 4y ago
Not sure about that. C64 BASIC was not all that impressive even then. Mid-eighties, those interested in BASIC programming on the C64 preferred Simon's BASIC.
timbit42 4y ago
The 6502 version of MS BASIC wasn't as good as the 8080 / Z80 version.
themadturk 4y ago
I have heard that Commodore BASIC was MS BASIC 2.0, so somewhat behind the times when it came out.
- lproven 4y ago
  It was. This was because Commodore was trying to keep the cost of the machine down, and BASIC 2 (along with the Commodore "kernal" [sic], the closest thing the computer had to an OS) fitted into an 8 kB ROM. CBM BASIC 2 was terrible. It didn't support any of the C64's excellent (for the time) sound and graphics. It didn't have structured command (IF... THEN... ELSE, REPEAT... UNTIL, WHILE... WEND etc.) or named procedures or local variables or anything. But it was small. This terrible BASIC is why most of the world became convinced that BASIC was a bad programming language. Other contemporaneous 8-bit home computers had much better BASICs, notably the Acorn 8-bits, but also Sinclair, Oric and others. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html

laumars 4y ago

> Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Nope and nope. The “best” is subjective but BBC Basic (as seen on Acorn BBC Micros) was fscking awesome. Far better than Microsoft BASIC in my opinion. Locomotive BASIC then took the BBC BASIC dialect and improved upon it. Amstrad shipped that on their CPC 464 models. There was a BASIC for the Atari ST I’ve used too which was pretty awesome. Microsoft BASIC might have been widely used but it was neither universal nor the “best”.

WorldMaker 4y ago
Well the obvious context here when talking about IBM's PC deals was "best" 1) "in the US" (eliminating BBC Basic), and 2) "at the time" (Atari ST happened after the IBM PC).
- laumars 4y ago
  Their context wasn’t about IBM buying BASIC, it was about IBM buying DOS from Microsoft. Plus given IBM was a global brand it seems a bit self-congratulatory to argue that only US-developed BASICs count anyway. However even taking your comment at face value, it’s still not true. There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch. Contextually here "best" also means "best fit for IBM to buy". Global brand or not, IBM certainly had US biases: a US headquarters, more engineers and managers in the US making purchasing decisions. I can't argue with you on the subjective quality of other BASICs, and I can't speak to what IBM "wanted" other than what we know they eventually purchased. Their "best fit" may have indeed been entirely "pragmatic" things like "ubiquity" or "cheap" rather than "best technically". > There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too. Citation needed on "plenty", I think. On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples). Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.

themadturk 4y ago

Microsoft also had FORTRAN and COBOL (and maybe Pascal? Not sure). They were known for their languages.

lproven 4y ago
This is true but only a partial picture. MS-DOS was Microsoft's first OS. In the early days (roughly, the 1970s) Microsoft only produced programming languages. So, yes, the company was known for it, but only inasmuch as it was known for nothing else.

lproven 4y ago

> They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business Given the whole thread that spawned from this, I have to say that I think this was poorly-worded. MS did not have the "best" BASIC by any measure except by one: it had the smallest BASIC in the business. The early MS BASIC releases ran in 4 kB or so, and even later on after it expanded, it still ran in 8kB. Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Monty Davidoff were famous for fitting a lot of code into a very small amount of space. That was the basis of the former two's extraordinarily successful careers. But "best"? No. By 1981, Acorn offered BBC BASIC, a drastically better language by any measure: structured programming, local variables inside named procedures, inline assembler and more. But it needed 16kB of ROM: a quarter of the memory map of an 8-bit CPU. > and everyone licensed from them already. "Everybody" did not license it. AFAICR Atari and Apple didn't; across the ocean, Sinclair and Acorn and Tangerine didn't. But yes, MS BASIC was dominant on the early American 8-bit machines: it was on Commodore, and I think on Tandy, and of course on the IBM PC right in the ROM if you didn't have disk drives.