Submitted by “Here’s a little thought experiment to take into the New Year. Not as difficult as Schrodinger’s Cat, but thought provoking nevertheless. Imagine that you woke up tomorrow to a world without Microsoft. Not a world where Microsoft never existed, but one where it hit some hidden critical corporate mass and imploded, or it was discovered that the Windows source code was actually the DNA sequence for red cabbage, and all the directors disappeared to a hidden undersea stronghold. Whatever really… Microsoft existed and now it doesn’t.”
2007: a World Without Microsoft?
110 Comments
2007-01-02 5:27 am
JonathanBThompson
I most humbly submit to you that Windows 95 was not the first Windows OS, and many would argue (correctly or not, I won’t debate that here either way) that it still had DOS underpinnings. The first *Windows* OS was Windows NT 3.1, released in 1993, which has zero DOS underpinnings, and is not nearly as capable of running DOS stuff under it as Windows 95 is: Windows 95 was an acknowledged stop-gap sort of thing that bridged between the Real World of the general consumer (and many businesses) that had older lower-end hardware combined with older DOS/Windows 3.1 (16 bit) software so as to allow Microsoft to address the business needs of not cutting off older users immediately, because of backwards compatibility (or lack thereof).
Windows 95 has a lot of 16 bit code in it, and some nasty limitations with the overall system for backwards compatibility: Windows NT never had 16 bit code in the OS except for what was required for the Command Prompt and WOW to allow older stuff to run in a mode not nearly as backwards-compatible as Windows 95.
Windows 98 helped the Win9x codebase move towards more 32-bitness, and (I think, but I never owned a computer that ran it) ME moved it a little bit more: Windows XP was the grand unification between the consumer lines and business lines 32 bit codebase, with a single version intended to address both needs. And then of course, Microsoft forked things off in many directions since then 
2007-01-02 11:27 am
MobyTurbo
I most humbly submit to you that Windows 95 was not the first Windows OS, and many would argue (correctly or not, I won’t debate that here either way) that it still had DOS underpinnings. The first *Windows* OS was Windows NT 3.1, released in 1993,
OK, good point. That would still place it later than Linux, which began in 1991, much less the claims that Windows is older than GNU and encumbered BSD!
2007-01-02 12:18 pm
JonathanBThompson
Depending on how incorrect the wikipedia articles are, Windows NT started actual software development before the OS referred to as GNU, though with a different name, due to the partnership at the time with IBM. I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT for that, and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU for the GNU OS, which while it was publicly announced quite a bit earlier, it was effectively a long-term vapor OS for the OS itself for many years
The original GNU OS envisioned and GNU Linux kernel are two separate animals, and while it was released in 1991 for the first version, it was also fairly simple compared to what NT 3.1 was at time of first release. Of course, the nature of the original Unix-ish kernels (they did get more complex and full of features over time, of course) is simpler than what NT was modeled after, combined with the fact that graphics aPI’s are a completely separate animal in Unix-ish OS’s, and are a shell like Windows 3.1 (16 bit) was on top of DOS, and to this day, I’m not aware of any Unix-based/modeled OS’s that are different in that respect. That has good points and bad points, of course: within the first few hours I had installed Windows NT 3.1 on a system, I apparently thought of a mad-monkey test their testers hadn’t: whipping the mouse back and forth very quickly for an unusually length of time, which caused it to BSOD, and which led me to my first experience with tweaking the registry, in this case to increase the size of the mouse queue: after I upped that to a much higher level, I wasn’t able to kill it that way 
I know of nothing to point to that would have Windows affect BSD one way or the other: could you provide me a link? thanks!
2007-01-02 11:58 am
sorpigal
Who said anything about whether Windows had to be an operating system? The original post to which I replied said that “the BSDs” predated Windows, I clarified that the free ones, the ones actualy called “The BSDs,” did not. And they don’t.
Windows may not have been an operating system but it definitely existed and that is my only point. It was a minor point which the original poster decided to fail to get. He made fairly ridiculous misinterpretations and then accurately debunked his misreading.
A good reply to my original post would have been “All right then. The BSDs predate any *good* version of Windows.” Which is stupidly obvious, since they haven’t made a good version yet, but at least accurate. It is unlikely that any BSD operating system’s development would have been significantly influenced by Windows until at least after the time the free ones were available.
2007-01-02 12:23 pm
MobyTurbo
Who said anything about whether Windows had to be an operating system? The original post to which I replied said that “the BSDs” predated Windows
Comparing Windows to Unix is only a valid comparison if one is comparing operating systems. Windows as a graphical DOS shell vs. Linux and *BSD is a meaningless comparison.
2007-01-02 7:16 pm
phoenix
By 1994 the AT&T lawsuit was settled and the {Net,Free}BSD projects, which had already been around a couple of years, released 1.0 versions based on 44BSD/lite. Linux had become fairly usable by then as well.
FreeBSD 1.0 was released in the early 90s (91 i think), but was based on 4.3BSD. FreeBSD 2.0 was the first release based on 4.4BSD/Lite2.
2007-01-02 9:44 pm
MobyTurbo
FreeBSD 1.0 was released in the early 90s (91 i think), but was based on 4.3BSD. FreeBSD 2.0 was the first release based on 4.4BSD/Lite2.
Thanks for the correction, which actually proves my point.
2007-01-02 10:59 pm
Doc Pain
“FreeBSD 1.0 was released in the early 90s (91 i think), but was based on 4.3BSD. FreeBSD 2.0 was the first release based on 4.4BSD/Lite2.”
No, that’s not correct.
FreeBSD 1.0 had been released in november 1993, it was based upon 386BSD 0.1, which was based upon 4.3BSD NET/2.
FreeBSD 2.0 had been released in november 1004, it was the continuation of the FreeBSD 1 branch and had merge effects from 4.4BSD Lite.
FreeBSD 3.0 was the first FreeBSD based on 4.4BSD/Lite2.
Please see http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/share/misc/bsd… for details.
2007-01-03 11:48 pm
phoenix
Sorry, got my Lites mixed up.
FreeBSD 2.0 was the “rewrite” of FreeBSD 1.0 that used the fully unencumbered 4.4BSD/Lite version, which is what I was trying to get at. Just got my Lite vs Lite2 mixed up.
2007-01-02 12:13 am
-
MobyTurbo
There is no Free BSD. Thats why there was a need and want for GNU/Linux.
Are you sure about that?
The project to make *BSD unencumbered by AT&T code at the CSRG actually predates and 386BSD, their ancestor, is nearly contemporary to Linux’s first release, but due to AT&T’s failed attempt to sue BSDI and other factors such as the Jolitzes disapeering off the face of the earth, FreeBSD and NetBSD were released a year or so later. (Though for a long time they were more reliable than Linux.)
-
Moulinneuf
“Are you sure about that?”
Yes , 100% , the core difference between GNU/Linux and BSD is that GNU/Linux is really free software.
Quote : “Linus Torvalds has said that if there had been a free Unix-like operating system on the 386 at the time, he likely would not have created Linux.”
“www.freebsd.org , http://www.netbsd.org , http://www.openbsd.org ”
Are all OPEN SOURCE community projects that have those in common :
– Lack of support
– Lack of developers
– Lack of funding
– Lack of commercial support
– Lack of commercial funding
– Lack of commercial developers
– Use the BSD license.
“The project to make *BSD unencumbered by AT&T code ”
Was a total and complete failure , as it was wasting resource on reworking something that was already obsolete and existing in other projects.
“due to AT&T’s failed attempt to sue BSDI”
The lawsuit was settled in January 1994. It don’t look good to sue a school.
“such as the Jolitzes disapeering off the face of the earth”
There not dead , You mean the BSD community not supporting them in anyway and condemning them and fragmenting projects. Revised history BSD LIAR always does that , interesting read for you :
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/17/386bsd/print.html
“FreeBSD and NetBSD were released a year or so later.”
FreeBSD and NetBSD started in 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD
“(Though for a long time they were more reliable than Linux.)”
No , BSD’er where lying about being more reliable among other things.
The biggest user’s of BSD are Microsoft , Apple and SUN making billions with it , the biggest outside contributors are GNU/Linux and we beat BSD’s own user witch is really where the shame and responsability of the lack of market share and support and funding of BSD is first. Why they dont contribute back ? Because with Open Source you don’t have to so they don’t.
-
MobyTurbo
Yes , 100% , the core difference between GNU/Linux and BSD is that GNU/Linux is really free software.
This is starting to be trolling (if it isn’t already.) Both RMS and the OSI consider *BSD to be free software. It may not be free software with a license you approve of, but it’s free software. (Please spare us about the advertisement clause if you’re planning to bring that up, it’s no longer the case.)
“FreeBSD and NetBSD were released a year or so later.”
FreeBSD and NetBSD started in 1993
Note I said “released”. The actual projects began as forks of 386BSD, which would place them as contemporaneous, and FreeBSD’s 1.0 was about a year later.
“(Though for a long time they were more reliable than Linux.)”
No , BSD’er where lying about being more reliable among other things.
The network stack of *BSD is much more mature, and FreeBSD’s memory management was superior to Linux’s until kernel 2.6. I admit now that this is no longer the case, however, thanks to the quagmire that is fbsd 5.x-6.x.
The biggest user’s of BSD are Microsoft , Apple and SUN making billions with it
I only wish Microsoft used more *BSD code, rather than only stuff like http://ftp.exe. Maybe it’d be a little more reliable and compatible with everything else. I don’t have a problem with Sun and Apple making money with *BSD code, it makes their operating systems better, and both of them have contributed back open source to the community. Sun has even made Solaris open-source, as they did with NFS and other software a long time ago.
-
Moulinneuf
Sorry , BSD is not Free software , its not open to debate for me. So I will agree that you are wrong.
No , BSD never had more mature network stack , it never had better memory management , and there is no quagmire , just the same BSD’s who blame everyone else under the sun for there own lack of support.
I don’t care about the making money part at all , its the Free Software part that as value for me and what I care about , you cant understand and I wont waste time trying to explain it.
-
MobyTurbo
Sorry , BSD is not Free software , its not open to debate for me. So I will agree that you are wrong.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
“The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-copyleft.” (The latter refers to the BSD license.)
No, BSD never had more mature network stack
So, all TCP/IP networking was inferior in quality until Linux came around and invented the internet? No, the BSD network stack is more mature (i.e. older) and has actually, even recently, set speed records in benchmarks. (The latest such benchmark was with NetBSD.)
it never had better memory management
Benchmarks please. Until Linux kernel version 2.6, most sources say FreeBSD did; albeit for most purposes narrowly. (Though many people said it was noticably better at running KDE, FWIW.)
just the same BSD’s who blame everyone else under the sun for there own lack of support.
I’d like you to quote where I even talked about that. This is a non-issue. If commercial support and popularity is one’s sole or primary issue, then run Windows.
Incidentally, ATM I’m running Debian GNU/Linux, but I don’t like it when people post false data.
-
Moulinneuf
The FSF judge a license on its stated merits , I judge the BSD on there usage and four decade of data , the possibility to close the code as nothing to do with copyleft. So in reality BSD is not Free Software , because you can always argue that it is copyleft in certain occasion.
“So, all TCP/IP networking was inferior in quality until Linux came around and invented the internet? ”
No , they where the same + improvment. Witch was passed on to BSD. So they where the same.
“No, the BSD network stack is more mature (i.e. older) and has actually, even recently, set speed records in benchmarks. (The latest such benchmark was with NetBSD.) ”
You don’t get Open Source … It would have been an advantage if there was no possibility to port it to GNU/Linux.
“Benchmarks please”
GNU/Linux run the majority of all super computer.
“I’d like you to quote where I even talked about that.”
That’s my point , not your’s …
“This is a non-issue.”
You prove my point , thats why GNU/Linux is bigger better , more funded , more widely used and finally more supported.
“If commercial support and popularity is one’s sole or primary issue, then run Windows. ”
See that’s where your wrong , GNU/Linux exist because its popular and it as more support then windows as it run on more platform and device and more people can use it.
“but I don’t like it when people post false data.”
I don’t , BSD is not Free Software , I know first hand I had my code that I made closed on me as I made it will working for somebody else projects that was BSD.
With Free Software the code never gets locked and you don’t get locked out of using it.
“ATM I’m running Debian GNU/Linux”
That’s good for BSD’s how ?
-
MobyTurbo
The FSF judge a license on its stated merits , I judge the BSD on there usage and four decade of data , the possibility to close the code as nothing to do with copyleft. So in reality BSD is not Free Software because you can always argue that it is copyleft in certain occasion.
Well, since the FSF (GNU) invented the terms “free software” and “copyleft”, I happen to give them more credence in determining those definition than a random BSD troll. BTW, do you actually know the meaning of the word “copyleft”? Copyleft is what distinguishes BSD vs. the GPL, not one of them being free software and the other not; according to the FSF, GNU, and OSI.
You prove my point , thats why GNU/Linux is bigger better , more funded , more widely used and finally more supported.
Since *BSD can run all the programs that Linux can (note the size of FreeBSD ports), and the amount of funding has no significant impact on the code (high quality code only needs a small team – see “The Mythical Man-Month”) there’s no advantage there. If you’re looking for widest use and greatest fund$, that path is the path of Windows.
I chose Debian mainly for ease of administration, but that’s because I’m somewhat lazy and ignorant – if I were a real Unix guru I’d be running *BSD or Slack, though I have run them before and enjoyed using them. Incidentally, Debian, a non-profit distro, has about the same amount of commercial support as the BSDs. Most commercial support is with Red Hat Enterprise Linux only. (Though MS just invested in Novell/SUSE and Oracle is trying to free themselves from the Red Hat and OpenSolaris platforms with a half-baked clone of RHEL.)
BSD is not Free Software , I know first hand I had my code that I made closed on me as I made it will working for somebody else projects that was BSD.
You are confusing copyleft and “free software”. According to the FSF website, both BSD-style and the GPL are free software licenses.
-
2007-01-02 2:58 pm
Babi AsuAgain, a Linux zealot try to bash other OS that is not GPL, though it’s free. Ironically, GPL is viral license that reduces degree of freedom a lot.
-
Moulinneuf
“a Linux zealot”
Please refresh my memory what individual that exist in reality did I kill because they disagree with my opinion ? None , so I ain’t a zealot.
Until you answer the above , or appologize for falsely accusing me as you always do , I will not address the rest of your insanity.
2007-01-01 7:22 pm
-
2007-01-01 10:08 pm
-
2007-01-01 11:27 pm
JamesTRexx*snickers*
Well, if I wanted to spend money on a new machine, I’d be very tempted to get a dual G5 Apple now, and I don’t think it’d be more expensive than a big Windows machine.
Windows is old, it has no coolness factor, and even though I’m a FreeBSD fan I think having an Apple would be fun and satisfactory.
-
2007-01-02 3:56 am
Anonymous PenguinFrom a great OS X lover: yes, Macs *are* expensive. Maybe the only exceptions are the 17″ iMacs.
But if Microsoft disappeared and Apple were to replace it, how about the billions of people who hardly can afford a $200 computer?
Wait a moment: those people would be better served by Linux.
2007-01-01 6:54 pm
siebharinn
So does this suppose just that Microsoft as a company no longer exists? Does existing installs of MS software stay in place, or are those magically uninstalled?
If MS software stays in place, then the world goes on. Third party companies spring up to provide support for existing MS software. Former MS employees form their own companies, Windows developers continue developing Windows software. Hardware manufacturers continue to provide drivers. The world slowly, gradually moves on to something else (probably produced by one of the MS employee spin-off companies) that is backwards compatible with existing MS software. Companies begin developing and *selling* Linux distributions that are Mac like, but run on existing x86 hardware.
On the other hand, if MS software got uninstalled from computers, and the world was wiped clean of MS, then it would basically mean the end of civilization. Too many infrastructure networks run on Windows. You would lose the power grids, banking, sewage, phone services, emergency services, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, and on and on. Not all at once: I’m sure that there are non-MS machines out there that control some of this stuff, but the majority of systems would fail and the remainders wouldn’t be able to interoperate. Simply installing Linux on those now empty machines doesn’t fix the problem. Something like ReactOS could help in the short term, but it would hit it’s limitations fairly quickly. Look at New Orleans and Katrina and what happened when basic services were interrupted for a few days. Imagine that on a world wide scale. Sounds fun.
It’s a silly article.
-
2007-01-01 7:30 pm
Milo_Hoffman>I’m sure that there are non-MS machines out there that control some of this stuff
Hmmm..you do realize the big world outside of your bedroom with your joystick attached Windows is only running about 1 in 3 servers?
-
siebharinn
Hmmm..you do realize the big world outside of your bedroom with your joystick attached Windows is only running about 1 in 3 servers?
Why would I attach a joystick to my bedroom? Or are you saying that my joystick is attached to the big world outside my bedroom. You don’t make any sense.
Assuming that your argument is true, which I doubt, suddenly losing one in three servers is a Bad Thing. It doesn’t mean a 30% drop in capacity, it means a total meltdown. It means a cascade failure. The internet as a whole *might* be able to take a 30% hit and keep going, but the government and service frameworks cannot. Most public services operate on the edge of capacity all the time.
-
2007-01-01 8:21 pm
l3v1Too many infrastructure networks run on Windows. You would lose the power grids, banking, sewage, phone services, emergency services, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, and on and on
Well, I don’t think so. Maybe, if so many of them rely on MS software, they’d loose accounting and managing tools for a while, but many of the vital services could just go on (well, I don’t know so much about this in the US, but it’s probably true for the rest of us). Also, you’d probably be surprised how many controlling systems, databases, huge mainframes out there don’t run on Windows. Temporary lack of client software wouldn’t bring the apocalypse, although these times wouldn’t be joyful, to say the least.
-
siebharinn
Well, I don’t think so. Maybe, if so many of them rely on MS software, they’d loose accounting and managing tools for a while, but many of the vital services could just go on (well, I don’t know so much about this in the US, but it’s probably true for the rest of us). Also, you’d probably be surprised how many controlling systems, databases, huge mainframes out there don’t run on Windows. Temporary lack of client software wouldn’t bring the apocalypse, although these times wouldn’t be joyful, to say the least.
Lack of client software means no control of the server systems.
Unless the client software was written in Java, or is web based (and not asp(x)), then it’s not going to be a simple matter of installing a Mac box and getting back to work. There is a lot of VB code out there that would need to be rewritten. Again, imagine New Orleans after Katrina. Imagine that big foobar waiting to abate until someone had written new client software to bring the power grid back up.
So sure, the controlling systems might not be running on Windows. But the *vast* majority of client monitoring and command systems are.
The services could go on, right up until the point where there was a fault that went undetected because the monitoring and management software was never alerted.
I spent a few years writing software for a large telecommunications / data company. You’re right; most of the big systems ran on Sun boxes. But all of the management and diagnostic software ran on Windows. It was all being converted to Java, so a definate way out there (well, apart from the JNI pieces), but it would take weeks at best to reconfigure enough client hardware to keep the network going, and by then, the network would be dead.
2007-01-01 7:07 pm
Tuishimi
Feh. I like my fantasy better. Besides, I don’t have the capability to imagine what the article specifies because my brain won’t let me believe it can happen. I guess I just don’t have that kind of imagination.
It’s easier for me to step back and do what the opposite of what it says “Not a world where Microsoft never existed”…
2007-01-01 7:07 pm
MacTO
My prediction: no mass transition.
If Microsoft just up and disappeared, a slew of companies would pop up to provide support for all of those legacy Windows systems. Most of them will be doing the mundane stuff to keep Windows running in existing systems, a few will extend the capabilities of Windows.
Overall, the industry would stall. How it would evolve after it comes out of that stall is an open question. Will businesses go for open source, or will they wait for a reasonable commercial alternative to Windows? Will home users abandon the concept of a personal computer for a glorified home entertainment system with Internet capabilities? Will Apple sacrifice margins for volume, by licensing out their operating system? Will open source developers step up to the plate to ensure that legacy Windows applications will work under Linux?
It is all too unpredictable. But it is fun to think of the possible outcomes.
2007-01-01 7:11 pm
Tuishimi
Alright, well in that case, as I said, I have no imagination but I will try and play the game…
It would be world chaos. And that’s it. That’s as far as my feeble imagination can take me with this because now we are left with a closed source operating system with no hope of advancement ever and that is it. Everyone would panic because now they would have to migrate onto other OS platforms and software products that meet their needs (or likely DON’T meet their needs) and continue on from there. The stock markets would collapse (or perhaps they did and that caused it) and the world economic powers would drop into a depression.
—————
Did you even read the article description?
This is if Microsoft were to just have disappeared today, not never existed.
-
2007-01-01 11:42 pm
r_a_tripIt would be world chaos.
Your world view entails a universe running on Microsoft, isn’t it?
For one, all the Nix machines would be unaffected. The existing Microsoft installs would be legacy overnight, but still run. After market support and extensions would pop up, but the platform is dead.
Intel and AMD would make sure that their commodity chips would be able to run old Windows software for some time to come. Slowly other platforms that are still able to update and innovate (not a monopoly of Microsoft) would slowly push out the old MS systems.
Eventually, the likes of Adobe, SAP, Oracle, Corel, etc. would (gasp) move their cash cow applications off of Windows and on to the next platform. Most likely something like GNU/Linux or OpenSolaris, because the hangover of the implosion of the proprietary empire would make people wary of closed source.
The Internet would be teeming with idiots on all sides, screaming some ridiculous predictions, but overall the world wouldn’t stop turning and software would still be written without Microsoft.
Edited 2007-01-01 23:44
2007-01-01 7:15 pm
RGCook
I would reason that the world’s economy is too heavily dependent on Windows to just let the next greedy Acme Corporation pick up the pieces and continue with the same modus operandi. With that said, I think the best option would be for the governments of the world to convene and establish a OS union that merged the fruits of Windows and OSS community into a common effort. In the meantime, we would do quite well for the next ten years +/- running on existing XP and Vista and Linux and OS X systems.
I’m thinking the end result would be a much more cohesive and exciting computing world. If you think this is nuts, you’re probably right!
-
2007-01-02 11:26 pm
KenJacksonI think the best option would be for the governments of the world to convene and establish a OS union that merged the fruits of Windows and OSS community into a common effort.
An operating system by government consensus?! Even Windows would be better than that.
2007-01-01 7:29 pm
Milo_Hoffman
Back in the 90’s, desks at Fortune 500 companies were starting to get full of UNIX workstations running Solaris, AIX, HPUX etc…sure they were expensive back then, but given enough time and demand the prices would have come down.
Plus we already had Linux, and we already had BSD, and we already had GNU — all BEFORE Windows 95 and Windows NT was even out.
In fact, if Windows NT 4 would have been delayed just a little longer….it might have been too late for Microsoft to be more than a small portion of the Fortune 500 desktops and compete with the large number of Unix workstations that would have been in place by then.
2007-01-01 7:33 pm
proftv
We would actually see some real competition in the operating system market, leading to more product choice, compatibility, innovation, and a drop in pricing as companies competed for sales. It would be a much better world.
-
2007-01-01 8:25 pm
macisaacNOTE: I love/d 80s computers. Felt much more fun back then. However…
If we didn’t/hadn’t had a Microsoft + Windows (or DOS), I would imagine we’d have been stuck in the world of 80s computing. That is, proprietary hardware running proprietary OSes, most of which would be incompatible with everyone else. So, imagine program X would have to come out not in one (or _maybe_ two) versions, but SEVEN, each for the very different OSes and architectures it might run on.
What MS gave us (along with all the bad stuff yes), was the idea of separating out the hardware from the OS, giving hardware much greater diversity (not stuck on the OS-makers hardware) hence greater competition and choice in that regard, but less competition in the OS arena. (I remember back in the day someone (he was putting me on) talking to me about actually being able to build you own computer, something that just seemed incredible back then in the world of commodores, apples, trs80s, etc.)
That said, since software producers generally only have to worry about getting their product working on one platform, this makes life easier for them, hence I’d imagine you see a greater diversity in that realm as well. In the end, it’s really only the OS that you find a decrease in diversity and competition (you can throw in the office suite too, but that’s a separate matter).
And yes folks, the above is the comment of a branded linux “zealot”…
Anyhow, I know the article is actually about what would happen if MS disappeared now, not if they’d never existed. In that case, I of course don’t know, but I’d suspect it’d be up the Dells, HPs, and Gateways of the world to decide on what they want to support (settling on a Linux distro with a big name behind it, Novell for instance, would seem to make the most logical sense at this point). I doubt Apple would see a huge increase though (some maybe, but not to the level of being the new Redmond), they’re largely stuck in the model I laid above which keeps them in a niche (which they seem to like anyway), not to mention I don’t think they could even handle that volume of business, at least not yet.
-
JamesTRexx
I doubt we’d still be stuck with proprietary OS’ because someone would still have started an OS like the *BSD’s just to be able to run something on that proprietary hardware they got their hands on.
Microsoft didn’t cause the birth of *BSD and GNU/Linux, people with curiousity and imagination did.
Edited 2007-01-01 23:29
-
2007-01-02 2:08 pm
axilmar“If we didn’t/hadn’t had a Microsoft + Windows (or DOS), I would imagine we’d have been stuck in the world of 80s computing.”
It’s a sad day today. IT and CS are going downhill. The world will be destroyed!
2007-01-01 7:42 pm
tilikum2
Uhhh…I don’t think so for me.
As Microsoft would subside like the old Hawaiian Islands to the North West, so would various users of Microsoft as they ‘evolve’.
Even Warren Buffet said he doesn’t understand the long term business strategy of Microsoft! That is why he said he wouldn’t invest in Microsoft.
Hey, wait! Customers & Developers already ARE EVOLVING. Unix, Linux, and all the rest.
For me personally, a major 3D CAD software application would obviously migrate back to Unix to remain usable (which is where it came from anyway, due to Bill Gates humongously inflated promises about what it would deliver and when to developers).
I think an article about the failures of Microsoft to deliver on major promises should be written. There are a lot of things promised in the less public arena to developers that were simply pipedreams. This sort of thing comes back to bite Microsoft eventually when those developers chose to pick OS’s to support.
2007-01-01 7:46 pm
ralph
And not just some useless drivel as this article?
Yes, imagine that, if a near monopoly with more than 90% of market share in some areas would suddenly disappear over night, the world would be “mad, fluctuating scramble”. Wow, now really….
Add some important sounding nonsense: “market rules wouldn’t change overnight.” Now really, who would have thought…
Then add some assertions without backing them up with arguments or logic: “It’s just possible that the most successful companies will be the ones who can play by Microsoft’s old-school rules.”
And it’s just possible that this would not be the case.
Anyway, without backing up your assertion a debate becomes pretty useless.
Finally, to make sure that you get the right reactions, spread some beloved myths for good measure:
“As the new Microsoft, Apple would encounter a stack of brand new problems which Microsoft deals with on a daily basis – security holes, targeted attacks and viruses.”
This is of course utter bullshit, but hey, it’s at least great flamewar material.
Really a pathetic article.
2007-01-01 7:55 pm
Phloptical
I really don’t see Linux benefiting any more from a Microsoft-less world than now in a Microsoft dominated world.
Former MS people would probably congregate at either Apple and Google and the cycle would begin again. Since Google doesn’t have any desktop worthy OS, that we know of, ready for mass consumption; Apple would (should) have easy pickings adopting what they already have to support the ex-Windows market. Google may try to push some half-cocked Web2.meh OS garbage on the market only to find the same utter lack of reception that it does now.
Of course, we all know how good Apple is at recognizing business trends, so I guess someone would have to send Jobs a written invitation, and corresponding business plan, as to how to make the most of Microsoft leaving the marketplace. Otherwise they’d screw it up just like they did throughout the late 80’s and most of the 90’s.
That’s my 2 cents, at least.
2007-01-01 8:07 pm
BluenoseJake
I wish that the sky was pink and everybody loves everyone else, and everyone has a unicorn.
2007-01-01 8:16 pm
BluenoseJake
Is that even though MS is gone, Windows would take 5-6 years for it to die, as XP would still be on most computers, and look how long some people stuck with 98. It would be a huge amount of inertia that would be hard to over come,
-
Anonymous Penguin
Very true. And an incredible number of people don’t even bother downloading updates.
2007-01-01 8:34 pm
zizban
I think these two years will be looked backed upon as the years that marked the decline of Microsoft. With the increased pressure of FOSS and the increasing mass of Windows, Microsoft will be a different company in the next few years. Not that’ll go anywhere but the hulking empire that is Microsoft is beginning it’s long, slow decline.
-
Anonymous Penguin
“the hulking empire that is Microsoft is beginning it’s long, slow decline.”
Exactly. And wait until people buy new PCs with Vista on it and find out that many of their old programs don’t work anymore.
2007-01-01 8:46 pm
2007-01-01 9:34 pm
SReilly
What I find really scary about this idea is that even the meager security patching that MS does would vanish, leaving those systems open to wide scale attack from the next “zero day” exploit.
In my experience, most server rooms are a mix of many differing technologies and even if the non MS setups kept running, in the situation mentioned above, the data provided by the MS systems would either no longer be available or would be tainted/corrupted. This would invariably lead to a total break down IMO.
-
2007-01-01 9:46 pm
Bit_RapistIn my experience, most server rooms are a mix of many differing technologies and even if the non MS setups kept running, in the situation mentioned above, the data provided by the MS systems would either no longer be available or would be tainted/corrupted. This would invariably lead to a total break down IMO.
Agreed. I know the company I work for, while having a very large investment in UNIX and Mainframe systems would be dead in the water if our windows systems were gone tomorrow we’d be hosed.
We have enough critical business applications running on windows to stop us dead in our tracks if it were gone. Even our UNIX and Mainframe stuff would probably fail as most of it gets data feeds from the windows side somewhere.
2007-01-01 9:41 pm
theTSF
Well without MS. there will be a period of “Dark Ages” in computing much like when the Roman Empire fell. Many companies will go nuts re-migrating their systems. But with no clear leader software developers will put more attention of cross platform development so the company can save their butt, in case their choice in platform is wrong. So during the period of redesign there will be lag in innovation for tech. But after most of the applications are cross platform compatible. Then there will be a new wave in innovation, with the confines of choosing OS because of software availability gone there will be a much wider selection of OSs to choose from where you can choose OS A because you like these features but OS B may be preferred by someone else but it is no longer a big deal because the applications work between both systems. I don’t see a world where there will be a leader. Apple will never take the lead because the OS only works on their hardware keeping in this nitch while prevents them from being #1 but staying focused it prevents them from getting to weak in its strong point to prevent it from loosing all its ground. Linux will never make it to the user desktop, the developers are to arrogant about their work and have to many blinders to see many obvious problems in the OS, and excusing them as Stupid users. I see new OS’s without the worry of getting a software base the new OS’s can focus on features that will make the fast and useful for particular needs, a OS designed for graphics work, and OS for Word Processing with virtualization as a glue to keep them together. But we have MS. Heavy handing the industry to make sure MS has lions share of the software that runs. And making it difficult for companies like Sun (JAVA) and Open Source Programming Languages (Python, Ruby, Perl….) to get a strong foot hold. Keeping people using a large multi-purpose (compromised) OS, vs the right tool for the right job.
-
SReilly
Interesting points and I agree with most of what you say. It’s just that I have never seen a company employ developers for tech support roles. Have you?
The Linux devs may be arrogant in your eyes but are they any more arrogant then any other developers? The devs are not interested in your idea of an ideal operating system and neither should they be. It’s the distros and power users that do most of the tech support. If you want something added to your particular flavor, contact the distro in question and with enough people kicking up a fuss, it will be added.
The devs want their ideal operating system, thats why they develop it.
Your comments about GNU/Linux devs being blind is easy to say but invalid if you don’t chose to voice your objections properly. It seems to me that you, not the devs are the blind one.
2007-01-01 10:15 pm
blitze
Sure, in the very short term life would be a mess but With access to Windows Source code this would be a boon for WINE developers to step up and get Windows Apps happening on Linux/OS-X.
Then it would be just a matter of further Software developments targeting multiple platforms based on Nix.
To Linux detractors, it is not as useless on the desktop as you’d like to think. Also getting actively involved in testing for the devolopers and providing feedback and lodging bug reports helps the cause 10 fold.
Sitting on your ass bitching about issues on public forums doesn’t.
2007-01-01 10:17 pm
Joe User
…Only a handful of geeks would be able to use a computer, the rest of us would go back to the 80’s and we would write everything in sheets of papers, and use the calculator.
-
2007-01-02 4:03 pm
trenchsolIt is not so bad. There are other systems that anybody could use. Mac surely, PC-BSD, and some Linux distributions. Some entertainment software would be lost, but you would be able to go on with your daily work, that’s for sure.
DG
2007-01-02 12:59 am
melkor
Interesting, but not going to happen…to be honest, modern computing owns Microsoft badly. We’d be still running weak computer systems like i386 etc, if it wasn’t for Microsoft driving the home usage of computers. Easy to use GUI, productivity suites for both home and office use, good hardware support, and most importantly, good gaming support. Set up a solid OEM supply chain for your operating system and you’ve pretty much done it. Microsoft was around at the right time, the right place, and most importantly, did the right thing, with the right people. Apple had the same opportunity, and people should ask themselves, what did Apple do differently to Microsoft? The answer to that is proprietary hardware, and expensive at that. If Apple’s operating system had ran on PC hardware, then Apple would be ruling the roost today I feel.
Microsoft does NOT offer a quality product, far from it. My current install of Windows XP runs like a dog, programs don’t open or respond properly half the time, it’s had spyware on it, etc. And it’s 9 months old. The guy who runs the network at home feels that all of Microsoft Window’s problems are because people install shit applications, but I refuse to believe that. He believes that you should only install Microsoft based applications, or at least applications from very large software vendors. Anything else is usually poor quality etc. I disagree with this of course – not every package on Debian is super stable, but in 4 years of usage of Debian I didn’t see it drag down the system to the degree that is happening with my current installation of Windows XP.
I just hope Adobe ports Photoshop to Linux, because to be entirely honest, I’ll be back using Debian in a jiffy. I absolutely hate having to use Microsoft Windows, it’s very poor quality software.
Most people just shrug and live with the poor quality, and reinstalling every six months becomes a habit that they just simply accept.
The sooner that governments regulate software, and make it just as responsible for a quality product as EVERY other consumer product on the market, the better. It’ll create better software, that is more stable and reliable and secure. Especially if Microsoft et al know that they can be sued for providing a sub standard product. The software industry is the only consumer product that is not regulated, doesn’t this make you think? Some may argue that this isn’t fair, and that it interferes with the software industry, but ask yourself, if that is the case, then why regulate anything else? Let’s not regulate electrical equipment, so the quality of the electrical product can degrade and offer a potentialloy dangerous electrical item that could electrocute someone. Let’s remove the ability for that manufacturer to be legally held liable for it etc. I’m sure many people would be screaming blue murder in that type of scenario. Software is no different, we’ve only had the softawre industry dictate and bribe our governments to allow it to run amok, and do its own thing without any accountability.
Dave
-
2007-01-02 4:29 am
Dave_KInteresting, but not going to happen…to be honest, modern computing owns Microsoft badly. We’d be still running weak computer systems like i386 etc, if it wasn’t for Microsoft driving the home usage of computers.
I don’t really understand how people can make this claim when I look at the actual history of the home computer. The biggest leaps forward in home computing predate Microsoft’s dominance of the industry.
Look at the progress that was made in the first 5 years after the release of (arguably) the first real home PC, the Altair 8800 in 1975.
We went from a kit computer for hobbyists, with switches and lights for input/output, to numerous commercial computers that were far more powerful. The Apple II, with its integrated keyboard, colour graphics and sound was available just a couple of years later, in 1977. The micro computer was already becoming big business by the end of the decade, with IBM preparing to release their PC.
Jump forward another 5 years and 16bit computers offering easy to use GUIs, like the Mac, Atari ST and Amiga, are available. A massive leap forward from the single tasking 8-bit computers that were cutting edge just a few years earlier.
I think it’s fair to say that we haven’t seen that kind of revolutionary change in the last decade. Despite the obvious progress when it comes to speed and graphics capabilities, a modern PC can’t do all that much more than a system from 5 or 10 years ago.
I see no reason to believe that the hardware we’re using today would be less advanced if there wasn’t a dominant platform/OS. There would still be plenty of competition between different companies and that would still drive progress, just like it did in the 70s/80s.
Of course there would be issues with compatibility if there were multiple different hardware platforms, each with their own OS, but I think that problem is often overstated. It’s inevitable that some standardisation, both of hardware and software, would occur between the platforms.
Even 15 years ago I could use my rather expensive external SCSI CD-ROM drive on my Acorn A5000, Apple Mac, or on my friend’s Amiga 4000. I could even have used it on a PC if it had a SCSI card fitted.
I could swap files between all those computers using standard 3.5″ floppy disks, and there was software available to read the different file systems. Then there’s networking, they all had ethernet as an option, and it wasn’t hard to get those different platforms speaking to each other.
Of course those different computers used different kinds of expansion cards, Nubus for the Mac, Podules in the Acorn, ISA in the PC, etc. But I think in time the different platforms would have standardised their internal connectors. Even if the IBM PC hadn’t come to dominate, standards like PCI and IDE would have spread to the different platforms. Once a couple of the popular platforms were using a standard the others would probably follow, or it would put them at a significant disadvantage.
Even in the days before MS Office became a standard, I didn’t generally have much trouble with file format incompatibility. As long as the files were in RTF or plain text, or were saved in a common image format, there was no problem opening them on my RISC OS system. Even compressed files were not generally a problem, and common word processing formats such as those used by Word Perfect and MS Word could be opened on my Acorn or Mac.
Even with Microsoft dominating I’m not sure things are that much better today. If I send some documents created in Office 2003 to someone still using Office 97, they probably wouldn’t have a lot of luck with them.
Maybe without Microsoft’s virtual monopoly and closed file formats, standards (like the Open Document Format around today) would have been adopted by the majority of productivity applications. I don’t think that’s such an unlikely fantasy scenario, not when there have been successful cross-platform file formats such as PDF.
Of course it’s all hypothetical, it’s impossible to know whether we’d really be better or worse off without Microsoft. I just don’t see the reasoning behind the idea that technology would be less advanced without them.
Apple had the same opportunity, and people should ask themselves, what did Apple do differently to Microsoft?
Apple didn’t have the same opportunity. Apple didn’t have the brand name power that IBM had among big business. Early on it was the IBM name that sold the PC, not the hardware specification, and definitely not the primitive OS it ran. Even if Mac clones had been available for a similar price, I think companies would still have bought the IBM PC.
Even if Apple’s OS had been ported to the PC, it would have been in the same position as other alternatives like GEM or OS/2. When IBM picked DOS as their PC’s standard OS they gave Microsoft an enormous advantage, one that couldn’t be beaten simply by providing a better alternative. Most people just stick with the OS that comes with their computer. Unless Mac OS had been preinstalled alongside DOS/Windows, it would probably still have been a minority choice.
-
melkor
You might be correct that big jumps were made from the mid 70s to the late 70s, and again from the early 80s to the mid 80s, but let’s consider one thing. What percentage of the population used computers at home – both during the mid to late 70s, and the early to mid 80s. Very few. The usage of computers was an elitist thing. Today, every Tom, Dick & Harry uses a computer, most of them with absolutely no idea what they are doing. Back in those days, you did have to grasp both the basics and intermeditiary levels of computing imho.
In terms of absolute users, that came about from the early 90s, with the release of Windows 3.x. We had another increase with the release of Windows 95. By then, Microsoft had released critical mass from a user base point of view.
If we compare the performance of computers from a percental point of view, from those in the mid 70s, to those available in the mid 90s, we’ll see that they increased X amount of percent. I don’t know the exact amount, but if anyone has exact numbers, it’d be appreciated. How much more powerful was a 486/dx2 over the Altair 8800? Twenty times? Fifty times? And compare that same 486/dx2 to a modern Athlon X2 Duo. The Athlon X2 4200 is probably 2-3 times more powerful than my 3 year old Athlon XP 3000+. That’s just in 3 years or so. That was inherently more powerful than earlier designs. I’d wager that the performance increase is larger from the mid 90s to now, than it was from the mid 70s to the mid 90s. I’d also wager that two things saw the increase of usage of computers:
1. Office suites in a work environment
2. Games
Microsoft pretty much won the games side of things by the mid 90s, and they won the office side of things by 98 in all honesty. Games have probably dictated performance improvements more than games, I think you could reasonably argue. And since the major platform for games is Microsoft Windows, and has been since the release of Windows 95 in the mid 90s, I think you could argue that in terms of performance, bang for buck, Microsoft has helped create the modern, powerful, cheap computer.
As an example, in 1997, I purchased the parts to assemble my first PC. My first hard drive was a 3.2gb Quantum Fireball running at 5200 rpm with a seek time of 14ms from memory. It’s cost? AU $380, and that was at a cheaper than retail price, as it was purchased at a local PC fair, with prices probably 25-40% cheaper than a retail store. Now, at the beginning of 2006, I purchased a Seagate 300gb 7200 rpm PATA drive with a seek time of around 8ms or so, for $180. From a cost per PC point of view, the costs probably dived further from a pure dolalr point of view from the Altair 8800 (at a guess, 10 grand?), to the 486/dx2, (4 grand at a guess?). From the 486/dx2 to the modern PC is probably from 4 grand to 1200 or so. But – from the point of view of how powerful the respective PCs are, the modern PC in the past Ten years has jumped much further ahead, than the PCs from the mid 70s to mid 80s I’d argue. Benchmarks from those that had those older machines would be appreciated to back my hypothesis up.
As to Apple – it’s entirely possible that if Apple had only made an operating system, and not hardware, and had ported the Apple operating system to run, not only ppc, but on a PC architecture, they’d have won the operating system market, and be where Microsoft is now. I mean, who in their right mind would choose DOS over Apple’s GUI? Let’s be realistic here.
We do know that Bill Gate’s mother had contacts at IBM, and that’s why he got a contract with them, even when at the time of granting of the contract, he didn’t even have a product. The old saying that it pays to know people is really true. Imagine if Bill hadn’t gotten that contract, or that it had been solely based on merit, and that Apple had hypothetically had an operating system to run on a PC architecture at the time, that was reasonably priced. There’s no way DOS would have won. No way at all.
Well, that’s my 2.2c, inc GST worth
Dave
-
Dave_K
What percentage of the population used computers at home – both during the mid to late 70s, and the early to mid 80s. Very few. The usage of computers was an elitist thing. Today, every Tom, Dick & Harry uses a computer, most of them with absolutely no idea what they are doing.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I don’t see what Microsoft did to change that. In my opinion it was primarily gaming and the internet that brought the PC into the home in the 90s. Microsoft just happened to be the company who provided the OS for the most popular hardware platform, they didn’t have much to do with the development of that hardware.
The use of computers in the home was increasing rapidly before the dominance of the IBM PC. Even 8bit computers like the ZX Spectrum, C64 and Apple II sold in their millions, they weren’t all selling to elitist computer geeks. Plenty of people with no idea of how a computer worked were happily using their Amigas and Macs in the 80s. Before the average person had even heard of Microsoft.
If Microsoft had never existed, I don’t see what significant effect that would have had on the games industry, or the internet. The same reasons why home users would want to purchase a PC would still exist, and there were plenty of other companies to supply them. Why would the lack of Microsoft have reduced the popularity of the home computer?
Back in those days, you did have to grasp both the basics and intermeditiary levels of computing imho.
That may have been true back in the days of 8bit computers running a CLI (although GUIs like GEOS were available for some), but by the mid 80s computers like the Mac, Atari, Amiga and Acorn were very easy to use. Even IBM PC users had the option of GEM if they wanted ease of use. If anything I think most of those older systems were easier to learn than Windows, if only because they were simpler.
In my opinion Microsoft have done nothing to make computers easier to use. If anything they held them back, as prior to the release of Windows 95 their operating systems were significantly less usable than the alternatives. If more people had been exposed to a friendly graphical computer, rather than a PC running DOS, I think it’s possible that computers would have found their way into the average home even more quickly.
I’d wager that the performance increase is larger from the mid 90s to now, than it was from the mid 70s to the mid 90s.
When it comes to raw performance I don’t have any benchmarks, but the number of transistors in the processor provides some indication of technological progress. The 8080 used in the Altair consisted of around 4500 transistors, by the mid 90s an Intel CPU had over 4 million, while today it’s measured in hundreds of millions. Overall Moore’s law (stating that the number of transistors will double every couple of years) has been remarkably consistent. Of course that doesn’t really show you actual the increase in speed, I too would be interested in benchmarks.
Personally I think it’s what you can actually do with the system that’s most important, not the raw speed. To me going from a C64 to an Amiga, or BBC Micro to Archimedes, makes the jump from a Pentium II to a Core 2 Duo look insignificant.
With the Pentium II I could still run the same multitasking OS I use today, I could still get online, run a modern office suite, edit photographs, and complete most other day to day tasks. Obviously it would be slower, but not unusable by any means. Going from an 8bit computer to a multitasking GUI on a 16/32bit system allowed me to do things with my home computer that would simply have been impossible a few years earlier. That’s the kind of progress you can’t really measure with benchmarks, but in my opinion it’s much more important.
Microsoft pretty much won the games side of things by the mid 90s, and they won the office side of things by 98 in all honesty. Games have probably dictated performance improvements more than games, I think you could reasonably argue. And since the major platform for games is Microsoft Windows, and has been since the release of Windows 95 in the mid 90s, I think you could argue that in terms of performance, bang for buck, Microsoft has helped create the modern, powerful, cheap computer.
The IBM PC had come to dominate the games industry by the mid 90s, but I don’t see what Microsoft had to do with that. Until well after the release of Windows 95, the majority of games ran on DOS, hardly a perfect OS for gaming.
People bought the PC because the hardware ran the games they wanted, not because DOS itself offered a superior gaming experience. If different platforms had been popular then the games would have been developed for them, and they would still have driven hardware development. Just like they drove the massive improvement in graphics seen between 8bit computers like the C64, and more advanced computers like the Amiga and Atari ST. Look at the competition between different games consoles and how they’ve improved, the lack of a single standard hasn’t stifled their development.
We could nitpick about whether there would be slightly faster or slightly slower progress without Microsoft, but I think it’s clear that hardware development didn’t depend on them. I think it’s absurd to suggest that we’d still be using 386 level hardware without Microsoft, especially as hardware significantly faster than that was developed before the IBM PC became so dominant.
As to Apple – it’s entirely possible that if Apple had only made an operating system, and not hardware, and had ported the Apple operating system to run, not only ppc, but on a PC architecture, they’d have won the operating system market, and be where Microsoft is now. I mean, who in their right mind would choose DOS over Apple’s GUI? Let’s be realistic here.
Based on the history of alternative operating systems on the IBM PC, the success of a Mac OS port would have been far from certain. Before Microsoft released a decent version of Windows, GEM offered a highly usable GUI, yet people stuck with DOS because that’s what came with their PC. Later on OS/2 was far superior to Windows 3.1 and BeOS was far superior to Windows 9x, yet people still stuck with the inferior OS that they received preinstalled on their PC. Unless Apple’s OS came preinstalled they’d have been at a serious disadvantage when compared with Microsoft, the quality of their product wouldn’t have changed that.
We do know that Bill Gate’s mother had contacts at IBM, and that’s why he got a contract with them, even when at the time of granting of the contract, he didn’t even have a product. The old saying that it pays to know people is really true. Imagine if Bill hadn’t gotten that contract, or that it had been solely based on merit, and that Apple had hypothetically had an operating system to run on a PC architecture at the time, that was reasonably priced. There’s no way DOS would have won. No way at al
The thing that I’ve never been able to understand is why IBM didn’t write their own OS, it’s not like they lacked resources. I could understand if they’d licenced a complex GUI operating system, that would have taken a significant amount of time to develop and could have delayed the release of their PC. But from what I’ve heard, the OS that Microsoft purchased and supplied to IBM was written in 3 months by a single programmer, and was under 5000 lines of code.
Surely that would have been trivial for IBM’s programmers? When you look at how much money Microsoft have made from that decision, it’s clear that it wasn’t the smartest thing IBM have ever done.
-
2007-01-02 11:54 pm
arielb“To me going from a C64 to an Amiga, or BBC Micro to Archimedes, makes the jump from a Pentium II to a Core 2 Duo look insignificant. ”
but when it comes to video (especially encoding) and 3D I would say there’s a pretty big jump.
-
Dave_K
but when it comes to video (especially encoding) and 3D I would say there’s a pretty big jump.
The increase in speed that’s made video editing and 3D rendering more practical on a home PC has obviously been significant. I just think it’s a relatively gradual evolutionary change compared with the revolutionary developments in the first decade of the home computer.
The change from a single tasking system with 64Kb RAM, 16 colour low resolution graphics, and a 1Mhz 8bit CPU, to a 16bit system with far superior graphics and a multitasking GUI, was much more radical and opened up many more possibilities. In a very short time DTP and high quality graphics work became possible on a home computer, along with much improved ease of use that opened up computing to many more people.
2007-01-02 1:10 am
solidsnake
Think of what happens when there is a major communications blackout. People can’t even get access to funds or money because so many people use plastic instead of paper now. With finacial data gone or inaccessible, how are you going to get food, pay your bills, or purchase vital medication. Believe me, FEMA ain’t comin’ to the rescue!! Microsoft products run more than just desktops. Yes we have Linux, Mac, or whatever, but initially and for quite a while, it would probabaly have the same effect as someone nuking wall street.
-
Moulinneuf
Communication run on UNIX and GNU/Linux , same thing for Financial systems.
That’s the real problem normal people connect to things with Microsoft so they assume the back end is Microsoft. When in fact Microsoft is almost nowhere to be seen.
The only thing that would be really affected is the XBOX 360 , not the game , the actual platform device.
2007-01-02 1:32 am
Gunblade
I believe I would be one of those people freaking out you know? I boot my computer and nothing is there. All my PC games through the years they are no longer on the shelf.
I talk to people of Wing Commander, or Half-life and I get blank responses.
A world without windows would be a world without some awesome gaming to me.
I think it would just be bad. Either way to…like if open-source didn’t exist :p
-
Moulinneuf
Wing Commander is a series of space combat simulation computer games from Origin Systems, Inc.
It was killed by Electronic Arts who bought them and depreciated the title in favor of there own ( EA in my view is the Microsoft of the Gaming world )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Commander_(computer_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
Half-Life, often abbreviated HL or HL1, is a science fiction first-person shooter computer game developed by Valve Software and published by Sierra Studios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life
Microsoft had nothing to do with the creation of both game.
2007-01-02 2:08 am
tomcat
… because it eminates from someone who, apparently, hasn’t considered the inevitable consequence that an even more pernicious entity would evolve from the chaos and dust Microsoft’s implosion. Why? Because businesses would demand that someone else support them — regardless of whether they’re running Windows or fill-in-the-blank-OS — so (a) there would be a commercial entity filling the vacuum of Microsoft’s departure, and (b) there’s no telling whether this new entity would be better or worse than Microsoft. Sometimes, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. [And for those of you who believe that businesses would eschew traditional support agreements and wade into Internet forums for their support, dream on — that’s a pipe dream].
2007-01-02 2:36 am
Darkmage
I believe someone would take BSD, or another UNIX, close source it, and begin cross licensing tons of patents/tech with other companies and build a closed source OS around it based on that code, which would then be used to fil the gap left by microsoft. Assuming of course that sun or apple didn’t step in in the meantime to do it. Linux is fun, I use it as a desktop os and it can do a lot of the work of windows. HOWEVER. it is not a drop in replacement for windows yet and it won’t be for sometime. X losing the xorg.conf config file is a great step and a real milestone for linux but even then you stll need cli knowledge to install/config a full desktop system. It’s coming along, not quite there yet. when home users can drop in a cd, install linux, boot to X with a nice point/click gui, double click an nvidia/ati driver installer and get their nice graphics cards/mice/keyboards online without ever touching a cli to run vi/nano/pico/emacs /etc/X11/xorg.conf or ./nvidia/ati-installer-versionnumber.run that’s when X configuration will be ready. Then we need to get a similar gui based system going for Wireless/Networking and Audio/TV Tuner Card drivers. THAT’s when Linux will be ready to fill the gap in terms of kernel/gui configuration of the system. Then for apps we still need some more work, yeah totem in gnome is nice, but the ffmpeg implementation in it leaves a lot to be desired, same with all the otehr video players on linux, gmplayer is atrocious (you call that a GUI?), seriously windows gets mediaplayer classic (a wicked open source media player) and we get this stuff? what the heck? we’re using an open source OS with inferior open source software to the open source software a CLOSED SOURCE OS has? there are a TON of good reasons to use linux. However there are also a ton of reasons why linux isn’t ready to drop in and replace windows. We need to fix this stuff. If Microsoft died tomorrow I’d hate to admit it but a hell of a lot of people would be worse off. It’s almost inconcievable but as the guy said apple would be able to almost dictate terms to users, why? because noone aside from a poweruser with time on their hands can use linux long term. Uni/highschool students/unemployed people have the time to mess with a distro for 6+ hours to get it installed/tweaked up nicely, other people do not have this luxury. It is our job as developers to give those people an OS which will handle things for them, that’s the main purpose of computers isn’t it? to make things easier for people not harder.
Edited 2007-01-02 02:51
2007-01-02 6:19 am
Donny_S
If MS goes away it would be like the MCP getting destroyed, the lights would go on everywhere and all users would get free and fair access to the American market. It’s not surprising that Al Gore hasn’t figured any of this out yet.
If MS goes away I could go to WalMart and sit at a kiosk and custom burn a GNU/Linux distro on a multisession DVD and pay USD-10.99 plus tax.
2007-01-02 6:22 am
proforma
This article basically describes the wet dream of Linux kids all around the world.
Open Source Linux to the rescue!
I am sure we would have every Linux geek masturbating and blowing their load in unison.
Sorry to sound so crude, but it would be the truth.
There are dangerous people on here that want this.
Frankly, I am just waiting until a linux fanboy walks in to Microsoft and starts firing away.
It won’t be long.
-
2007-01-02 11:37 am
B. Janssenproforma: I am sure we would have every Linux geek masturbating and blowing their load in unison.
You know, many (at least those i know) GNU/Linux enthusiasts wouldn’t have time to wank off. We would sit in meeting rooms and discuss how to migrate our companies to a supported platform without blowing out a year’s budget.
Frankly, I am just waiting until a linux fanboy walks in to Microsoft and starts firing away.
Frankly, you should not draw conclusions about others based on your own dementia.
2007-01-02 6:46 am
alcibiades
If it had happened before the hardware platform got standardized, one of the other posters is correct, we would have islands consisting of proprietary hardware, an OS that would only run on it, and apps that would only run on that hardware. The industry would consist of companies with business models like Apple’s, production runs would be smaller, incompatibilities a real problem, and costs far higher. We could expect much lower average performance. But probably far fewer viruses and less malware. Less home use.
It is quite easy to imagine this scenario, because it was the world of IBM and the Bunch, back in mainframe days, just projected into PC technology.
If it happened in recent or near future times, you have to imagine what caused it, because that would be a big influence. People usually miss the sleeper on this one, because they talk about ‘business’ making choices, and they mean US, or at least Western, business. The most plausible scenario however is China and India doing a state encouraged move to Linux/Unix, and economic growth continuing to shift the center of gravity east. Then we have a scenario in which MS finds itself increasingly confined to the US, stops growing and starts to gradually shrink. Municipalities in Europe start to move away, followed by central government and businesses.
In this world, the US sees little difference but the world picture has changed dramatically, and MS shareholders also lose. Apple’s position doesn’t change much. The world continues to run on standard hardware, just that outside America it runs a different OS and apps.
To imagine MS vanishing as a force in the US, we have to try to picture real cataclysm. Perhaps a new St Helens arises overnight in Redmond at the same time as some virus or terrorist attack totally disables WGA? Offices and homes everywhere are full of machines that will not boot, and there is little prospect of the servers being made available again this month. What does IT do? They quickly drop a Linux distro wherever they can. What else is there to do? Its the only fast way to get the hardware working. A month later, a surprising amount of stuff is working normally….
2007-01-02 6:52 am
2007-01-02 11:42 am
arielb
if microsoft simply went poof, people would continue to use Windows 2000/XP as usual and other companies will emerge to provide support. Windows would be totally free as in $ and maybe even open source. or maybe taken over by a consortium of oem’s such as dell and HP. People will not switch to Apple or linux. People want and depend on windows and MS office even if they hate microsoft.
Now what if both Microsoft went down and somehow a virus eliminated Windows from every pc? actually the virus is more plausible than something happening to the company. ok lots of people will be screwed. they’ll go to Apple and Sun but even this will be very hard even if they let everyone have macosx. since the computing world will be so screwed, apple/Sun will have to be very charitable. But they have OS, apps, hardware, support in some fashion. x86 solaris for enterprise and mac for home.
-
alcibiades
“if microsoft simply went poof, people would continue to use Windows 2000/XP as usual”
2000 maybe. But maybe not XP, when it called home to verify it was legitimate, and found everyone out….
-
2007-01-02 5:18 pm
ma_dWow, speaking of pipe dreams. A failed Microsoft open sourcing its only chance at new life, Windows?
Actually, if Windows dissappeared overnight companies would likely pop up for support, but I doubt Windows would be free or open source. More likely, Windows would be unavailable, and anyone who popped up to provide it would end up getting sued after some success by Gates himself as he’d be illegally selling his intellectual property…
Windows 2k/XP would likely end up abandoned within a few years as the unfixed exploits became too much to deal with and it would then be relegated to completely disconnected tasks where the software hasn’t yet been ported.
Developers would run to the next platform where someone would market to them and make them feel “excited” to be developing for them. This would probably actually be Apple this time (or maybe they still haven’t figured this out) or maybe IBM would jump in the game with its own custom Linux and suck in the developers: If this were the case I imagine Java would actually get even more popular.
-
arielb
I took the ‘fantasy’ of a microsoft that was completely gone and not a failed company with something to hold on to. Otherwise, of course those left will hold on to Windows.
I do not believe that linux will fill the vacuum. There’s no such ‘thing’ as a linux OS that you can point to for leadership and guidance. The same goes for the BSD’s. With Sun, you can turn to them for solaris and openoffice and the hardware to run it all. That’s a real solution.
Apple doesn’t seem to like to be in the corporate world so they really can’t take it over. But for home it’s great and solaris won’t have a chance there.
-
ma_d
Sun couldn’t sell day light (no pun intended) to people in the arctic…
A completely gone Microsoft still wouldn’t free up the property rights to Windows… You’d simply be out of luck with it (which is one of the things open source proponents bring up as an issue with dependence on proprietary technology).
2007-01-02 12:38 pm
Soulbender
I really fail to see the point of “articles” like this mainly because they’re completely fictional and are just speculation. As interesting as alternate history is for storytelling, alternate history without Microsoft is rather lacking of, shall we say, dramatic edge.
They’re good for starting flamewars though and for bringing in that ad-revenue that pays for the hosting.
2007-01-02 1:30 pm
andyleung
I personally think that if the Microsoft disappears tomorrow, companies would come up and support Windows apps for a while, and after 5 years, it would be Mac and Ubuntu’s world. Why Ubuntu? I am not talking about the technologies they have, nor how good the hardware detection it is, why not SuSE or RedHat? I am talking about marketing here. So far, I can see that Ubuntu is doing the best marketing and why Mac? because for those older generations, they know Mac more than Linux. For personally use, I guess many people would go for a Mac as you can still run windows apps there. For Business, either going back to mainframe or port apps to Linux. In business world, many enterprise apps are built with Java, the only thing you have to worry about is the hardware level changes because that’s the only thing tightly deals with OS. And IT field employment would suddenly boom and then for another 5 years, IT field layoff rate would increase. That’s what I can see.
2007-01-02 2:03 pm
aGNUstic
If McSoft went belly up?
There would be an immediate panic as McSoft systems administrators walked around in a confused daze. Their certifications all worthless and trying to brush up on *nix, Linux, BSD and OSX.
The old *nix, BSD, Linux and OSX admins would be walking around wearing t-shirts reading, “If you see me laughing….”
Change is not always a negative.
Governments would not collapse. City services would not stop. Bombs would not fall. Heck, there are systems out there still running NT4 and earlier operating systems.
There would be an increase in economic competition since there is no longer a company strangling it at nearly 95 percent global market. There would be competition of the like that has never been seen for nearly 30 years.
This would include hardware, software, support as-well-as programming from vendors and companies.
In my lifetime of 43 years, I’ve seen the demise of the many once-powerful companies, the demise of the soviet union and other countries, as-well-as the execution of tyrants once thought impossible to touch.
It can happen to the strong company just like the weak – so it’s not outside that realm.
Edited 2007-01-02 14:14
2007-01-02 2:20 pm
WorknMan
As soon as MS does, some other ‘evil empire’ would rise up to take their place. Maybe one day some of you will realize that MS is merely a symptom of a bigger problem, and not the cause.
2007-01-02 3:41 pm
Psy2
If MS went suddenly completely bankrupt, the market probably crash for that year. Most consumers would probably just stick with what they got, software and hardware sales would probably crash as consumers would be confused and take a wait and see stance.
Business probably due the same but migrate to other software far sooner then consumers.
Edited 2007-01-02 15:41
2007-01-02 3:43 pm
trenchsol
It is not so unthinkable. A serious terrorist attack could knock them down. They might preserve the source code and crucial data, but the loss of key personell would cause major disturbance. They might even recover, but the competition will fill the void and gain advantage in the market. Companies don’t have much contigency, they work under strain all the time.
If the terrorists were not so stupid, they could have thought about that. On the other hand, they probably use Windows, too.
That’s a good reason for governments to avoid being too dependent on particular vendor, and to use at least some open source software.
DG
2007-01-02 4:03 pm
Hank
I was really looking forward to this article when I saw the headline. I wanted to see how he would envision the world where 90% of web browsers became unsupported, where enter enterprise communications systems based off Exchange would have to move to some alternative or the ramifications on the large number of web servers and centralized systems based on IIS and SQLServer. All he concentrated on was the consumer desktop market. That’s really the least of the worries since that is really a nice to have compared to the lubricant that keeps modern industry going.
2007-01-02 4:38 pm
slacdude
Uncertain what all the fuss is about, as I’ve been living in a “microsoft free world” since late ’02. It is truly wonderful!
2007-01-02 6:45 pm
archiesteel
…but it would not be the end of civilization as some MS advocates have predicted (because the software would still be on the machines before they migrated to another OS).
One thing’s for certain, there’d be a lot less MS shills polluting Internet discussion forums! That alone would be worth it…
2007-01-03 12:46 am
Punktyras
I’m afraid, 80% of Windows users wouldn’t even notice disapearance of MS, ’cause they do not use its services (updates, patches etc). And this is sad. Not for MS existance or nonexistance, but ignorance…
2007-01-03 2:52 am
ohbrilliance
Does this mean that all the Microsoft-patented code in Linux would also disappear? We’re doomed!!
2007-01-03 5:09 am
proforma
This article basically describes the wet dream of Linux kids all around the world.
Open Source Linux to the rescue!
I am sure we would have every Linux geek masturbating and blowing their load in unison.
Sorry to sound so crude, but it would be the truth.
There are dangerous people on here that want this.
Frankly, I am just waiting until a linux fanboy walks in to Microsoft and starts firing away.
It won’t be long.
-
2007-01-03 6:37 am
-
blitze
Nah, he’s just describing how he feels everytime he turns on his computer and sees his Windows XP boot screen. Must wreak havok with his cloths but I don’t want to delve further into that image or else I’ll puke.
MS fanboys are such a bore.
“Open your mind” a great quote from a not so great film but it seems to be very adequate when it comes to addressing MS fandom. There’s more to computing, and no not just Linux but I agree with the OSS principles on which Linux is based and it is developing nicely as well.
Edited 2007-01-03 11:53
2007-01-03 6:35 am
…and mainframes would be more prevalent and people would be using terminals or remote X stations.
Apple would still be a niche retailer selling to publishing firms, graphic artists, etc. BeOS would RULE THE DESKTOP MARKET (if one could call it that)!!!!
Seriously, without a cheap, ubiquitous OS driving a hardware market for personal PCs (and a good marketing machine)… I don’t know that we would have them today, at least not in their current form.
You know, I wouldn’t mind it either. Give me an old uVAX, X windows/motif and a bunch of mainframes to support. Sounds like a little slice of heaven to me.
[edit]
I DO think PCs would be here, but I am not sure what form they would take. Apple, IBM and other game console-like developing companies would continue to develop toward lower cost and more power, but I just don’t see the masses coming to them to use them for day-to-day functions.
Edited 2007-01-01 18:24
Did you even read the article description?
This is if Microsoft were to just have disappeared today, not never existed.
This reads more like someone’s pipe dream than a plausible happening.
Microsoft won’t be around forever, but it’s not going anywhere in the near future.
The author notes at the end of the article that the company that behaves most like Microsoft will essentially become the new Microsoft, which sounds like a mere changing of the guard.
Edited 2007-01-01 18:28
In my world Microsoft already doesnt exist.
same here, and i’m glad of it
Microsoft = Washing powder ?
Microsoft makes your clothes realy soft
I thought Microsoft was the Anti-Viagra. Makes you small and soft
If it was some sort of “alternative” history take on how personal computing would be in 2007 without Gates and Microsoft in the picture. Would Apple be king of the hill with its relatively expensive systems? Would Linux/GNU exist? What about the BSD’s?
Great idea for an article, but clumsy execution.
“Would Linux/GNU exist?”
And why not? The history of Linux and the FSF is not related to Microsoft, AFAIK.
“What about the BSD’s?”
If I remember correctly, BSDs are older than Windows.
The free BSDs do not predate Windows, though the FSF does (barely).
In a world without Microsoft many fantasies are possible but few predictions beyond the first few years of Microsoft’s influence can be accurate. If you attempt to describe beyond about 1987 you are describing a fantasy, an alternate history.
BSD = 1970
Microsoft = 1974
FSF = 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation
The no-cost open-source BSDs that are around today came after Windows.
They may have started with Berkely’s Unix-based sources but the effort to decouple BSD from AT&T code didn’t begin until around 1989 and certainly finished after Windows. The release of unencumbered BSD post-lawsuits is the mark of the beginning of what I called the free BSDs.
If I had meant Free BSDs I would have used capital F.
Plus, your dates are mostly wrong.
Unix may have been 1970 (or 1969) but Berkley didn’t get Unix until 1974 and distribute anything until 1977, according to the article you cite.
Microsoft may have been 1974 but Windows, which is what I said predates the free BSDs, began in 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Versions)
Your completely wrong , and I will include UNIX reference too ( its from the 60’s officially , but probably had development in the 50’s ) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
If BSD code and softwares had been really Free , the BSD code , softwares and drivers , closed and inside Microsoft windows and Mac OS X would bee included in the other BSD’s and ported Freely to GNU/Linux and other OS’s not when they feel like giving a small token back. They don’t due to the Traitor effect in the BSD license that allow license switching to something closed licensed.
Once again, I did *not* say that BSD was Free. I said that BSD was free, which I later clarified to mean no-cost open-source. Capital F Free-as-in-GPL is something else.
So, when I say that the free BSDs came after Windows I mean that the legally unencumbered derived-from-berkley-code Unix operating system was not available until after Windows, which is entirely true.
While the roots of Unix development reach back to MULTICS and further, Unix itself was not released in any form before 1969. No code written for MULTICS was used in Unix. Unix was written in B and then rewritten in C, but the C version did not come until 1973. There is simply no code shared between any development that took place in the 60s (much less the 50s) and Unix as we know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics
Sorry to disagree but BSD as always been no cost Open Source.
There as been sharing of code , idea , developer , and development method since the beginning of the computer industry.
Your off on the details and calling BSD free you will never get me to agree to , so lets agree to disagree.
I call BSD free, not Free. We agree on that, though you insist on seeing things case-insensitively. Are you a *nix fan or not? free != Free.
Yes, BSD has always been no-cost (or close enough) and Open Source, but I don’t count the free BSDs as existing until after the lawsuits got settled. If you count from the first release then on that we really must settle on disagreement.
“Are you a *nix fan or not?”
No , I am a Free Software and GNU/Linux fan , because it works for everyone. *Nix is a nice foundation to build upon as does Open Source , its just not enough , I was a big fan and advocate of both of them , but I have seen first hand there bad side.
“but I don’t count the free BSDs as existing until after the lawsuits got settled.”
Like I said there not Free or free ( we can agree to disagree on that too ) , they just are more aiming at being free then what was available before and I will give you that the new BSD’s do a better job , they just need to go really free and real freedom start by protecting freedom from getting closed and taken from others.
“If you count from the first release then on that we really must settle on disagreement.”
Yes , I do because they are BSD after all , the license is not really the problem , ( Open Source is not bad on itself ) , support , funding and cooperation and elitism is the BSD biggest problems. Not that GNU/Linux don’t have some of the same problem in some area.
The closing possibilities outweight the rest for me.
Microsoft may have been 1974 but Windows, which is what I said predates the free BSDs, began in 1985 (