Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (23593)	11/18/1999 3:50:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Which came first, the DOS OS or WordPerfect, 123 and dBase...? Of the four, the one that came first was dBase. Along with WordStar, it was one of the programs that helped CP/M become the dominant OS for those businesses that used these new micro-computers. It actually provides a great example of the applications barrier to entry since the early developers of what became MS-DOS strove to make it as easy as possible for developers of applications like dBase to offer their programs on the new OS for a new processor. Why don't we ask Microsoft itself to tell the story? The following is from the first edition of the MS-DOS Encyclopedia (Microsoft Press, Redmond; 1988). First, though, the names: What was to become MS-DOS was called QDOS (for "quick-and-dirty OS") and written by Tim Paterson who worked at a company called Seattle Computer Products. "...CP/M had become the standard for 8-bit machines, so the ability to mechanically translate existing CP/M applications to run on a 16-bit system became one of Peterson's major goals for the new system. To achieve this compatibility, the system he developed mimicked CP/M-80's functions and command structure, including its use of file control blocks (FCBs) and its approach to executable files." Note the importance of the existing base of applications here. The introduction of Intel's 16-bit 8086 was an epochal event in the industry. Existing 8-bit programs -- applications, languages, and operating systems -- would not run on the new chip. One response to such an epochal change -- a response taken a few years later by Apple -- is to abandon the old system entirely and orphan its applications. Paterson and, later, Microsoft eschewed that approach. They both felt that they would succeed in supplanting the existing CP/M standard only if they made it as easy as possible for developers to port their existing CP/M applications to the new system. As we all know, Microsoft later bought the OS from SCP and licensed it to IBM for their new PC, while retaining the right to also license it to other manufacturers. It was a quick, but not an instant success. The biggest problem for Microsoft was that Digital Research, the developer of CP/M, had released a new version of their system for the 8086. DR was late in releasing CP/M-86, but IBM shipped both systems once it was available. Even Microsoft itself ported its languages to both MS-DOS and CP/M-86. From the history: "Given the uncertain outcome of this two-horse race, some other software developers chose to wait and see which way the hardware manufacturers would jump. For their part, the hardware manufacturers were confronting the issue of compatibility between operating systems. Specifically, they needed to be convinced that MS-DOS was not a maverick -- that it could perform as well as CP/M-86 as a base for applications that had been ported from the CP/M-80 environment for use on 16-bit computers. ... "Thus, even though some people had originally believed that only CP/M-86 would automatically make the installed base of CP/M-80 software available to the IBM PC and other 16-bit computers, Microsoft convinced the hardware manufacturers that MS-DOS was, in actuality, as flexible as CP/M-86 in its compatibility with existing -- and appropriate -- CP/M-80 software." As you said, "Vendors will write to the OS which has the greatest chance of making them the most money. MSFT knows how to market in this fashion." Indeed they do. And a major part of that marketing focuses on overcoming the applications barrier to entry that protects the dominant OS. Why didn't Geoworks Ensemble attract the apps from third parties instead of MSFT Windows? That's a good question. Since you deny the importance of the applications barrier to entry, I understand why you would be confused by that turn of events. Notice that one of the first third-party applications available on Windows was something deemed a "killer-app" on the Macintosh, Aldus PageMaker which was available on Windows 2. Two other category leaders on the Mac were also made available on Windows, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. A third Mac program, the business graphics PowerPoint was bought by Microsoft and ported to Windows. It was never simple, but Microsoft attempted to make it as easy as possible for developers of Macintosh applications to port their programs to Windows. Instead of trusting third parties to adopt the new system this time around, Microsoft created the applications base itself.