How did microsoft get so big anyway ? 2

Marketing and stealing everyone elses ideas and doing their own thing with it.

Windows v3.1 (and subsequently WFWG v3.11) and Office Professional v6.0 were the first truly mainstream applications that boomed in the market and people being people cluttered together like mindless sheep and just followed the herd without rhyme or reason. It's just the mob mentality of just doing what you've always done.

Quite sad, actually.

Cheers!

Brillant marketing,

Requiring PC makers at the time to install Microsofts Operating System. Once you get used to a product (doesn't matter what that product is) you stick with it, especially if your business invests a ton of money in it.

Right or wrong.. Marketing, Marketing, Marketing is why most people buy products.

My2Cents

MrGreed

"did you just say Minkey?, yes that's what I said."

By not making any serious mistakes:

-- Being out of the office when IBM calls to license your product (CP/M)

-- Spending 18 months rewriting your product for the 8086 when it worked fine on a 80286 (Lotus 1-2-3)

-- Refusing to write the next major version in C, because assembly is good enough (Novell NetWare)

-- By requiring developers to pay hefty fees for the development kit (Lotus Notes & IBM PS/2 & IBM OS/2 v1.0)

I will grant, however, that Microsoft is very aggressive -- sometimes too aggressive (Go, Stac, etc). But on the whole, they've gotten where they are today by hiring really smart people who work really really hard.

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

Let the bashing begin. Not for or against M$ just my thoughts.

1. Bill gates not exactly the persona of Richard branson or donald Trump

His persona really does not have to do with it. He is very sound business man. You can come up with every reason in the world why he is not but they dont add up because look where he is. I dont buy it all was marketing.

2. Microsoft make things which never work properly littered with bugs

Name a program that does not have bugs. Not an excuse just a fact.

3. Sercurity has never been there strong point
NO argument there. I am completely pissed at them right now since it seems I am updating my systems once a week for something they either should have know or should be testing for.

4. Where is the inovation ? surely the inovators were apple and IBM

I dont think they ever were. They just make things more user friendly.

5. Ok kind of in relation to 4, so he wrote the first operating system but then what ? everything else has been second rate compared to other options.

6. Microsoft doesnt exactly have a track record in customer satisfaciton.

depends, on who you ask. I like thier products. All them no but the only complaint I ever really have is security. If they would work on that I would be a happy camper.

7. The brand doesnt exactly have a public image such as the coca-cola franchise

Outside the IT world no gives a flying (you know the rest). Sorry but its true. M$ is easy to use and that is all people care about. It works good enough.

8. Support ?? ho ho ho !

You are probably right. I never tried to find it from them, usually found answers somewhere else.

9. They come up with all unworkable and time consuming licencing this that and the other, which is not ideal for business ,but still will follow the lemming that is microsoft,

with you there, but I see it with all software companies not just M$

10. If microsoft was a person and they came into my office with their CV and track record looking for a job, i would send them to mcdonalds.

no comment


AJ


If at first you do not succeed, cheat!

Gatorajc:
It's your rebuttal to Change1234's 4th comment I find most interesting.

I agree with you. I, too, have never found found cause to accuse Mi¢ro$oft of true innovation. Even if one of their products shows that attribute, I discover after research it's because they bought the product from another company (or bought an innovative company outright).

Yet more times than I can count, I've watched in bemusement as Bill Gates has tarted himself up to make a speech against something Mi¢ro$oft doesn't like (legislation, regulation, etc.). And the first phrase he trots out is "will reduce Mi¢ro$oft's ability to innovate".

The question that always springs to my mind is, "What's stopping you from innovating now?"


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!

Chance1234,

Re point 4: Microsoft did not write its first operating system - it started out with programming languages.
MS-DOS started out as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) which was a product created by Seattle Computer which was purchased by MS.

The history of MS is written in a book called "Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the making of the Microsoft empire" by James Wallace and Jim Erickson, Wiley books, 1993.
Yes - its out of date, but it does give you the details of how it came to be and the first major products etc.

John

Micromoney, has purchased more competitors and acquired more software through mergers and acquisitions than through their own product development.

It is the reigning desktop because it is simple for people to use. Linux for a desktop is still nowhere near the simplicity of MS's bloatware. I would guess for every 10 people who have purchased Linux for the desktop due to media hype that less than 1 of those 10 are using it on their computer at home.

Until a Unix variant becomes easier to use/install or Apple will run all MS software through emulation or licensing (though Bill has spent a lot of money on Apple or has an investment in the company) Windblows will continue to dominate the desktop. The Intel/MS solution for Enterprise Servers in the Data Center is a goal for Bill for complete dominance, however, they are a long way off. My former company assessed moving 100+ Notes servers with 5 AIX machines but they already owned the Intel machines and didn't want to invest in more AIX servers. The point is Wintel solutions cannot match RISC solutions for the Enterprise.

The point is Wintel solutions cannot match RISC solutions for the Enterprise.

This may be true in some areas but not in others.

People and companies take a great deal of time in designing a UNIX enviroment, they not only look at current needs but also growth rates and areas that will require scalability. While lots of people and companies look at MS Products as plug and play for the needs of the enterprise. The see they needs a mail server, a database server, a PDC a BDC for their company or project. From what I see they don't take growth into consideration that much. I see this happens most in the Database area. Companies spend thousands of dollars and many hours devoted to the proper configuration of an ORACLE db. While at the same time they believe they can Order a server intall MS SQL and it's ready to go. If resources are devoted to proper setup, configuration, design and implementation a MS SQL DB can preform just as well as an ORACLE DB for many companies, I didn't say all companies.

In this aspect I think peoples impression of microsoft being easy to use and not taking a great deal of effort is what has damaged them in how people view them when it comes to Enterprise Solutions.

As for how it got so big it comes down to Luck and Talent. Bill Gates was lucky by being in the right place at the right time. The talent is in their marketing and many of their design teams.

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

I wouldn't say MicroMoney's talent is in design. Far from it from a lot of aspects.

Just taking a desktop workstation for example, my FreeBSD workstation can run 5 compiles, use my browser and run xmms to play multimedia files without any notice of impact to my system. With Winblows, I am lucky to have my browser open while downloading anything, else it is REALLY slow.

There is a performance difference and a reason to use a RISC platform vs. Wintel. I once worked on an AIX server that was a consolidated server running 40 Oracle databases, a voice response system, WebSphere, Web Server, Infoprint, Brio, Informatica, and many other high-end critical apps - all on ONE server that just ran and ran. Try that on Wintel and you couldn't!

I think Apple deserves a share of the blame. Or maybe Apple users.

In the late 80s and early 90s there were platforms besides Apple or WinTel for the desktop. Apple (and especially local Apple user groups) drew a line in the sand, crossed over to MS's side, threw their arm around Bill Gates' shoulder, and stated "we're the only legitimate desktop platforms."

Thus computational diversity was destroyed in the desktop computing marketplace.

As Apple products continued their evolution into boutique machines they became more and more marginalized. Too expensive, too flakey looking, and constantly lagging in technology where it mattered - the product of a closed architecture.

Who knows where Amiga, Atari, and others might be today if the fruiters hadn't done this damage? Not only were these smaller players marginalized by Apple, Apple (and the Apple community) threw support and credence to the Microsoft way in a particularly shortsighted manner.

I'm not trying to or even going to get into a who has the biggest stick contest because we can all bring to the table our stories of what we have done that we believe another platform couldn't do. My point was to address the issue of enterprise solutions, which we all have an are entiltled to our own opinion. I still believe that is peoples attitudes towards MS Entreprise apps weren't the same as their approach to Desktops apps then there would be a more positive results in the Enterprise area.

There is no Ideal platform for an Enterprise solution but probably the best is one that many smart companies use, which is a combination of platforms.


"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

NeXT anyone?

OS/2 anyone?

Yes, there were viable alternatives, some better than MS but for whatever reason they died.

As for the enterprise, there are some places where you do want a Wintel solution because of cost, not a critical 24x7 app, etc. My complaint is that Bill sees and wants MS to be the TOTAL solution and thinks that he can provide it by trying to get into the data center. MS should stay where they are and what they are best at. IBM doesn't offer a PC OS anymore, for instance.

I am not convinced by the brilliant marketing, just give me one example of a succesful microsoft marketing campaign ?



Filmmaker, gentlemen and proffesional drinker

Chance1234:

Example of successful M$ marketing campaign:

The people who have never used a computer in their lives who bought Windows 95, who got taken in by the hype. Nuff said.

John

Chance1234:

Their marketing must be wildly successful in general. Otherwise Bill Gates would be laughed of the stage every time he mentioned the words "Mi¢ro$oft" and "security" in the same sentence.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions: TANSTAAFL!!

Yes,

Microsoft has convinced many that their products are great despite the bugs, and it's not a bug to Microsoft it's a feature.

You don't get to be a multi-billion company by mistake!



MrGreed

"did you just say Minkey?, yes that's what I said."

The area of Microsoft in which they do excel (no pun intended), and where they have been somewhat innovative is in their legal department.

But then, over the last 20 years, and currently, they've had lots of practice.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

It depends how you define marketing. A fairly standard definition is ..creating, promoting and delivering goods and services to consumers...

Most companies standardize on MS Office and Windows.
Most PCs ship with MS products as standard.
Most home users consider MS as synonymous with the applications they use. They don't even consider that there may be an alternative.

So, they "create" products, which are bought by vast numbers of people/organizations.

QED Good marketing.

Quality is a different matter. If you regard their products as inferior, how much better must be their marketing? Their Legal Dept is, presumably, part of their marketing operation.

I swear that Microsoft developers have a mantra - let's see what piece of bloated, unstable, security-ridden, useless feature we can add.

If the public wasn't so ignorant then MS would have been sued years ago for defective software. My only hope would be for the California class action lawsuit either force MS out of business or forever make them create a stable usable product.