3 ms·

None of us know what was said but I have no reason to doubt it based on the reports of his subsequent conversations with lower-level IBM executives. It probably

by acdha 1y ago

None of us know what was said but I have no reason to doubt it based on the reports of his subsequent conversations with lower-level IBM executives. It probably didn’t seem like an especially consequential decision both because neither Gates nor Kildall were especially proven at that time by the standards of a Goliath like IBM and the mainframe guys were notoriously dismissive of PCs (Opel came up through S/360). I’ve seen enough nepotism not to question the plausibility but it’s especially easy to imagine people high up the management ladder at the biggest mainframe manufacturer thinking it didn’t really matter which of the toy computer operating system vendors they picked. I didn’t work in that world then (that was my dad’s generation) but even in the mid-90s when I started working in tech it was not uncommon to find mainframe people who were dismissive of PC or Unix systems as non-serious.

WalterBright 1y ago
Ms Gates wasn't on the board of IBM, she was on the board of another company. That isn't nepotism. There is no way successful IBM would commit to Microsoft without a thorough vetting. Few remember, but IBM also sold CPM/86 for the PC. Kildall had his chance, and muffed it with the high price.
- Tor3 1y ago
  I remember the very high price of CP/M-86. If that was because of DRI's pricing and not something IBM did, then indeed that made the choice simple, in Kildall's disfavour.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    As I recall, Kildall thought that CP/M-86 was much better than MSDOS, and people would pay the higher price. He was unable to make the case, though. I tried CP/M-86, and found it to be different, but not better.
    - skissane 1y ago
      > I tried CP/M-86, and found it to be different, but not better. Comparing PC-DOS 1.0 to CP/M-86 1.0, I don’t think there are huge differences in features - maybe FAT12 is a more efficient filesystem; PC-DOS records file sizes to the byte, CP/M files are made up of 128 byte records, and although there is a filesystem attribute to say how many bytes in last record are used (file size mod 128), it has to be implemented at the application level; DOS had EXE files (wasn’t in SCP 86-DOS, was added by Microsoft), I think CP/M by then had something similar? Neither had directories yet, but CP/M had “user areas” which were a kind of limited equivalent. I think if they’d ported MP/M instead of CP/M (which I believe they did later), it would have been a more compelling offering-multitasking-but I suppose that would have made it even later to the market than it already was.
      - canucker2016 1y ago
        The CP/M-86 wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-86 )lists the IBM PC version release date as 1982-04-05, several months after the Aug 12 1981 IBM PC introduction. According to this wired.com page, https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0812ibm-5150-personal-computer-pc/ https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0812ibm-5150-personal-computer..., IBM had sold 65K PCs in 4 months.
  - ndiddy 1y ago
    According to the oral history of Tom Rolander (VP of engineering at DRI, he was in the famous IBM meeting), IBM wanted to call CP/M-86 "PC-DOS" and pay a one-time licensing fee, but DRI said they had to keep it as CP/M-86 and pay a per-device royalty. About a month after the meeting, Rolander heard through the grapevine that IBM had licensed QDOS instead of CP/M-86 for their operating system. Kildall informed IBM that he was already aware of QDOS and was preparing a lawsuit against SCP because he believed it to be an illegal CP/M clone. To defuse the situation, IBM promised that they wouldn't bundle an OS with the PC, would offer PC-DOS, CP/M-86, and UCSD P-System alongside the PC, and would pay the royalties up front for some large number of copies of CP/M-86. The condition was that DRI wouldn't sue IBM or Microsoft over the similarities between QDOS and CP/M. When the PC was released, Kildall and Rolander discovered they had been double crossed: > So we got the notice about the rolling out and all the rest of that, and so as Gary and I were want to do, we flew up to San Jose and took a cab over to the IBM store, and we came in the store, and sure enough there was the IBM PC sitting there, and here were the three boxes of the operating system. And we looked at this and the IBM PC-DOS was priced at $40, and then over here was CP/M and it was priced at I’m pretty sure it was $260. It was more than $200 above PC-DOS, and I don’t even remember what the UCSD P-System was. But we looked at that and I’ve never had my face slapped in my life, but I know what it would feel like to have my face slapped. It was such an unexpected thing. I mean we had totally assumed that this was going to be a level playing field, that PC- DOS was going to be priced the same as CP/M, the same as the UCSD P-System, and that we were going to let the market, the users decide which one, which clearly it wasn’t. And Gary described that day later on in his memoirs as kind of the day innocence was gone. Here's a link to the full oral history if you're interested: https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/02/102717253-05-01-acc.pdf https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...
    - skissane 1y ago
      > It was such an unexpected thing. I mean we had totally assumed that this was going to be a level playing field, that PC- DOS was going to be priced the same as CP/M, the same as the UCSD P-System, and that we were going to let the market, the users decide which one, which clearly it wasn’t. And Gary described that day later on in his memoirs as kind of the day innocence was gone. This seems like a rather unrealistic expectation when one has per-device royalties and the other hasn’t. Of course, that probably can’t fully explain the magnitude of the price difference-which may indeed have involved some underhandedness on IBM’s part-but a vendor who charges a reseller more for a product than its competitor and then complains that reseller sells its product for a higher price the competitor’s, is being a bit silly
- jen20 1y ago
  > There is no way successful IBM would commit to Microsoft without a thorough vetting. As I recall, at the time said commitment was made, Microsoft didn't even _have_ an operating system, and subsequently bought QDOS! Their original deal was for languages.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Gates convinced IBM that he could build one, as he knew about QDOS, and immediately went and bought QDOS as a base to start with. So, yeah, it was a bit of bluster on his part, but he was able to fulfill the contract.
    - wpollock 1y ago
      It wasn't a "base to start with". MS Dos was QDOS. I was a summer intern in the early 1980s with IBM in Kingston, NY, and had access to the source. Gates didn't even bother to remove the SCP copyright notice from the comments, nor the references to QDOS. Too bad "sed" and "awk" weren't available for search and replace back then.
      - canucker2016 1y ago
        Much of the remaining QDOS/PCDOS work was probably adapting to the IBM BIOS. from Tim Paterson's website, https://web.archive.org/web/20190722012644/http://www.patersontech.com/dos/softalk.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20190722012644/http://www.paters... ...In May, he went to Microsoft to work full-time on the PC-DOS version of 86-DOS. "The first day on the job I walk through the door and 'Hey! It's IBM,' " says Paterson, grinning impishly. "I worked at Microsoft a neat eleven months. In May, June, and July I worked on things I hadn't quite finished, refining PC-DOS." International Business Machinations. This was the beginning of an eleven-month hurricane. Almost daily, Paterson shipped stuff to Boca Raton for IBM's approval, and IBM would instantly return comments, modifications, and more problems. "They were real thorough. I would send them a disk the same day via Delta Dash. IBM would be on the phone to me as soon as the disk arrived." Paterson pauses and winds up. He's remembering one request that clashed violently with his view of the project. "IBM wanted CP/M prompts. It made me throw up." But when IBM asks, you comply if you're a lowly programmer, and that is what Paterson did. He finished PC-DOS in July, one month before the pc was officially announced to the world. By this time, 86-DOS had become MS-DOS.
- acdha 1y ago
  I specified the United Way to avoid confusion on that point. While the word nepotism originated from the Italian word for “nephew” referring to popes appointing their relatives, in modern English usage it more broadly includes friends as well. See for example the OED: “the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs”. If it helps, pretend that I wrote “cronyism” instead. My point was simply that it having a friendly voice at the board level is a large potential advantage which was only available to one of the vendors. While we cannot prove anything which wasn’t written down, it seems implausible to say it couldn’t have affected things – especially in an era where personal relationships carried more weight and there was less scrutiny of these sorts of things.

by acdha 1y ago

WalterBright 1y ago

Ms Gates wasn't on the board of IBM, she was on the board of another company. That isn't nepotism. There is no way successful IBM would commit to Microsoft without a thorough vetting. Few remember, but IBM also sold CPM/86 for the PC. Kildall had his chance, and muffed it with the high price.

Tor3 1y ago
I remember the very high price of CP/M-86. If that was because of DRI's pricing and not something IBM did, then indeed that made the choice simple, in Kildall's disfavour.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  As I recall, Kildall thought that CP/M-86 was much better than MSDOS, and people would pay the higher price. He was unable to make the case, though. I tried CP/M-86, and found it to be different, but not better.
  - skissane 1y ago
    > I tried CP/M-86, and found it to be different, but not better. Comparing PC-DOS 1.0 to CP/M-86 1.0, I don’t think there are huge differences in features - maybe FAT12 is a more efficient filesystem; PC-DOS records file sizes to the byte, CP/M files are made up of 128 byte records, and although there is a filesystem attribute to say how many bytes in last record are used (file size mod 128), it has to be implemented at the application level; DOS had EXE files (wasn’t in SCP 86-DOS, was added by Microsoft), I think CP/M by then had something similar? Neither had directories yet, but CP/M had “user areas” which were a kind of limited equivalent. I think if they’d ported MP/M instead of CP/M (which I believe they did later), it would have been a more compelling offering-multitasking-but I suppose that would have made it even later to the market than it already was.
    - canucker2016 1y ago
      The CP/M-86 wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M-86 )lists the IBM PC version release date as 1982-04-05, several months after the Aug 12 1981 IBM PC introduction. According to this wired.com page, https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0812ibm-5150-personal-computer-pc/ https://www.wired.com/2011/08/0812ibm-5150-personal-computer..., IBM had sold 65K PCs in 4 months.
- ndiddy 1y ago
  According to the oral history of Tom Rolander (VP of engineering at DRI, he was in the famous IBM meeting), IBM wanted to call CP/M-86 "PC-DOS" and pay a one-time licensing fee, but DRI said they had to keep it as CP/M-86 and pay a per-device royalty. About a month after the meeting, Rolander heard through the grapevine that IBM had licensed QDOS instead of CP/M-86 for their operating system. Kildall informed IBM that he was already aware of QDOS and was preparing a lawsuit against SCP because he believed it to be an illegal CP/M clone. To defuse the situation, IBM promised that they wouldn't bundle an OS with the PC, would offer PC-DOS, CP/M-86, and UCSD P-System alongside the PC, and would pay the royalties up front for some large number of copies of CP/M-86. The condition was that DRI wouldn't sue IBM or Microsoft over the similarities between QDOS and CP/M. When the PC was released, Kildall and Rolander discovered they had been double crossed: > So we got the notice about the rolling out and all the rest of that, and so as Gary and I were want to do, we flew up to San Jose and took a cab over to the IBM store, and we came in the store, and sure enough there was the IBM PC sitting there, and here were the three boxes of the operating system. And we looked at this and the IBM PC-DOS was priced at $40, and then over here was CP/M and it was priced at I’m pretty sure it was $260. It was more than $200 above PC-DOS, and I don’t even remember what the UCSD P-System was. But we looked at that and I’ve never had my face slapped in my life, but I know what it would feel like to have my face slapped. It was such an unexpected thing. I mean we had totally assumed that this was going to be a level playing field, that PC- DOS was going to be priced the same as CP/M, the same as the UCSD P-System, and that we were going to let the market, the users decide which one, which clearly it wasn’t. And Gary described that day later on in his memoirs as kind of the day innocence was gone. Here's a link to the full oral history if you're interested: https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2017/02/102717253-05-01-acc.pdf https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...
  - skissane 1y ago
    > It was such an unexpected thing. I mean we had totally assumed that this was going to be a level playing field, that PC- DOS was going to be priced the same as CP/M, the same as the UCSD P-System, and that we were going to let the market, the users decide which one, which clearly it wasn’t. And Gary described that day later on in his memoirs as kind of the day innocence was gone. This seems like a rather unrealistic expectation when one has per-device royalties and the other hasn’t. Of course, that probably can’t fully explain the magnitude of the price difference-which may indeed have involved some underhandedness on IBM’s part-but a vendor who charges a reseller more for a product than its competitor and then complains that reseller sells its product for a higher price the competitor’s, is being a bit silly
jen20 1y ago
> There is no way successful IBM would commit to Microsoft without a thorough vetting. As I recall, at the time said commitment was made, Microsoft didn't even _have_ an operating system, and subsequently bought QDOS! Their original deal was for languages.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Gates convinced IBM that he could build one, as he knew about QDOS, and immediately went and bought QDOS as a base to start with. So, yeah, it was a bit of bluster on his part, but he was able to fulfill the contract.
  - wpollock 1y ago
    It wasn't a "base to start with". MS Dos was QDOS. I was a summer intern in the early 1980s with IBM in Kingston, NY, and had access to the source. Gates didn't even bother to remove the SCP copyright notice from the comments, nor the references to QDOS. Too bad "sed" and "awk" weren't available for search and replace back then.
    - canucker2016 1y ago
      Much of the remaining QDOS/PCDOS work was probably adapting to the IBM BIOS. from Tim Paterson's website, https://web.archive.org/web/20190722012644/http://www.patersontech.com/dos/softalk.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20190722012644/http://www.paters... ...In May, he went to Microsoft to work full-time on the PC-DOS version of 86-DOS. "The first day on the job I walk through the door and 'Hey! It's IBM,' " says Paterson, grinning impishly. "I worked at Microsoft a neat eleven months. In May, June, and July I worked on things I hadn't quite finished, refining PC-DOS." International Business Machinations. This was the beginning of an eleven-month hurricane. Almost daily, Paterson shipped stuff to Boca Raton for IBM's approval, and IBM would instantly return comments, modifications, and more problems. "They were real thorough. I would send them a disk the same day via Delta Dash. IBM would be on the phone to me as soon as the disk arrived." Paterson pauses and winds up. He's remembering one request that clashed violently with his view of the project. "IBM wanted CP/M prompts. It made me throw up." But when IBM asks, you comply if you're a lowly programmer, and that is what Paterson did. He finished PC-DOS in July, one month before the pc was officially announced to the world. By this time, 86-DOS had become MS-DOS.
acdha 1y ago
I specified the United Way to avoid confusion on that point. While the word nepotism originated from the Italian word for “nephew” referring to popes appointing their relatives, in modern English usage it more broadly includes friends as well. See for example the OED: “the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs”. If it helps, pretend that I wrote “cronyism” instead. My point was simply that it having a friendly voice at the board level is a large potential advantage which was only available to one of the vendors. While we cannot prove anything which wasn’t written down, it seems implausible to say it couldn’t have affected things – especially in an era where personal relationships carried more weight and there was less scrutiny of these sorts of things.