I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Windows 95, is in fact, Windows 95/MS-DOS...

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Windows 95, is in fact, Windows 95/MS-DOS, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Windows 95 plus MS-DOS.

Attached: file.png (1200x675, 446.8K)

The DOS component was basically a compatibility layer, completely overridden if you weren't using DOS drivers/TSRs for anything.

Billy boy did nothing wrong.
He didn't steal DOS from Killdall, he bought it from him.
He didnt resell it as is to IBM. He and Paul Allen changed a lot of parts in the OS.
He didn't build it himself because the whole point was IBM needing an OS now and with no delay (otherwise they would've done it themselves).

And most importantly, he first organized a meeting between Kildall and IBM but he didn't show up and IBM refused to work with him in the future because of that.

Gates didn't buy DOS from Kildall. Kildall wrote CP/M, an operating system that ran on early microcomputers. Gates actually sent IBM to Kildall to buy/license a version of CP/M for the new IBM personal computer. When IBM couldn't or wouldn't make a deal with Kildall, Microsoft bought what became MS DOS from Seattle Computer Products for $50,000 and licensed it to IBM. It was written by Tim Paterson, who mimicked CP/M's application programming interface.

>He didn't steal DOS from Killdall, he bought it from him.
He didn't steal or buy anything from Kildall - 86-DOS was a different product, from a different company (Seattle Computer Products).

>He didn't steal DOS from Killdall, he bought it from him.
He didn't buy it from him, he bought 86-DOS from Tim Paterson. And yes it was a clone of CPM but it was original code.
Killdall blew it because he was too aloof to sell IBM his product for the PC. He could have been huge and he had his shot but he was a bit of an idiot.

>He didn't build it himself because the whole point was IBM needing an OS now and with no delay (otherwise they would've done it themselves).
Billy Goat programmed Microsoft BASIC with Allen and its pretty tight code.
See Commodore 64 Basic V2 as an example and the internals are so well documented you can spend years learning its ins and outs.

I still hate Bill Gates.

>I still hate Bill Gates
Understandable. But i don't thik he did anything wrong against Kildall. The part where he was an absolute asshole was against Apple and Jobs.

Sure. Killdall literally shot himself in the foot with his meeting with IBM. Being dismissive when the biggest computer company on the planet at that time comes knocking was ridiculous.

> The part where he was an absolute asshole was against Apple and Jobs.
Yeah and Apple stole from Xerox.
Honestly I would have scrambled as well to get a graphical interface for DOS.

>Microsoft bought what became MS DOS from Seattle Computer Products for $50,000 and licensed it to IBM. It was written by Tim Paterson, who mimicked CP/M's application programming interface.
Bill conveniently forgot to mention Paterson that his customer was IBM so the price was only 50K. Later on Paterson sued IBM/Microsoft for this.

Attached: 1637706849916.gif (400x400, 3.66M)

>stole from Xerox.
That's a funny way of spelling "licenced to subsidiary, as Xerox owned 10% of Apple at the time".

>Bill conveniently forgot to mention Paterson that his customer was IBM so the price was only 50K. Later on Paterson sued IBM/Microsoft for this.
He didn't conveniently forgot to. He had a strict non-disclosure agreement with IBM. Besides, even if we ignore the agreement he signed, he had no reason whatsoever to mention that. You wouldn't either. No one would.
You negociate the price of what you want to buy with the seller and he fixes the price for it. He could've asked more for the software if he wanted to.

Also there was a small tech company in like California that somehow managed to patent like multi-window DOS before everyone else somehow. Always wondered if that motivated the big software companies to invest more in GUIs.

>Sure. Killdall literally shot himself in the foot with his meeting with IBM. Being dismissive when the biggest computer company on the planet at that time comes knocking was ridiculous.
THIS

>Yeah and Apple stole from Xerox.
No, Apple had a deal with Xerox against 10% of Apple's shares and they had a deal with MS as a contractor. MS kept delaying deliverables while working on their own version of the software despite the non compete. They sabotaged Apple's work to make the non-compete expire before the Apple GUI was released.

That's the part where MS started acting like assholes. What happened with the DOS was done in good faith and there was nothing reprehensible about that. But the Apple/Xerox episode was evil.

What I find quite disgusting and just like the Law of the Jungle is that when someone really revolutionizes a significant component of software they are pressured to sell to one of the megalith corporations or face the patent army lawyers.

Seeing as I'm bitching its just like Disney corp who will not allow Mickey mouse early image copyright to expire and fights for extensions but Disney himself used Snow White in the public domain to make his iconic animation film and to establish his company as a world class player.

>What I find quite disgusting and just like the Law of the Jungle is that when someone really revolutionizes a significant component of software they are pressured to sell to one of the megalith corporations or face the patent army lawyers.
First, Xerox didn't revolutionize anything and the concept of the GUI and the mouse were invented in the 50s/60s by some guy who was disregarded at the time.
Second, Xerox didn't care about their tech and didn't value it. Xerox was a bigger company than Apple at the time. All they cared about was printers. The guy who saw the invention and translated it into an innovation was Jobs. The Xerox guys were so stupid they felt it was useless junk. Same can be said about personal computers. It was Wozniak and Jobs who identified the innovation whereas IBM thought that the idea of making computers for individuals was retarded and no one would want them. Then, when it worked for Apple they decided to throw billions at PCs to crush the company. Same for smartphones.

In terms of innovation in the consumer computing, Apple was always the first-mover. And i said that as someone who hates apple and never uses their products. It's just the truth.

beat me to it. Xerox wasn't pushing their "revolutionary" gear at all (Star was ridiculously overpriced albatross), while the (much smaller) Apple did.

I dunno if you know the story about Adele Goldberg, then founder of PARC place systems. Here's a quote:

"He [Jobs] demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk system, and the then head of the science center asked me to give the demo cause Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo. And I said: No way. I had a big argument with the Xerox executives telling them that they were about to give away the kitchen sink. And I said I would only do it if I was ordered to do it because then it would be their responsibility, and that's what they did."

Let's see Paul Allen's OS

Attached: Eqcl-21W8AEtIwV.jpg (1200x883, 79.43K)

>[Jobs] demanded that his entire programming team get a demo of the Smalltalk system, and the then head of the science center asked me to give the demo cause Steve specifically asked for me to give the demo. And I said: No way.
This is so illogical that I'll bet my house it didn't happen.
Xerox PARC were legendary for giving both public and private demonstrations of their shit to anybody who asked. Remember, even then, they were a world-renowned R&D center, eager to show off their goodies.

Okay, even if that were true, the guys at the PARC weren't involved in decision making at all. All their inventions were destined to the trash because the executives didn't value any of them and considered them to be fruitless endeavours just like the guys in the 50s/60s who didn't value the work of the guy who invented the mouse and GUI. Had there been no steve jobs, not only would there be no personal computing but there would be no GUIs or smartphones.

Nah, we're talking a year or two delay for both personal computing and GUIs, at worst.
Seriously, both were inevitable developments: personal computing thanks to the 6502 microprocessor, and GUIs by the drive to increase market share - at some point, you have to bring the normies in.

>Star was ridiculously overpriced albatross
Even the Star was nothing but a move they made after they shared the concepts with Apple. Knowing that Apple was about to create the LISA based on PARC GUI tech they decided to move before them with a year just because a competitor/partner was going to do it.

Well think again. Personal computing was a Wozniak dream for a decade or two before Apple was created and literally no company involved in computing was seeing it as something that would ever happen, and especially IBM. You're just speculating.

Same for GUI tech, it was there since the 50s and no business thought that there was any product-market fit or that there was any way to improve on that concept until apple came 30 years after.

>You're just speculating.
Yes, because I don't live in this alternate reality we're speculating on. But keep in mind that Apple invented neither the cheap microprocessor, nor the GUI. They're not a prerequisite like MOS or Xerox are. "Standing on shoulders of giants" stuff.

>Xerox
Xerox didn't invent anything either. They just used the invention of Douglas Engelbart from the 50s and they considered them to be useless trash afterwards.

It's not about the invention, it's about the innovation and about making the invention fine-tuned for real world use. I say you're just speculating because there's no indication toward your claim. The GUI was invented in the 50s and was disregarded for 30 years until Apple came. There was no interest for the Personal Computing field until Apple came and made the bet that there was an implicit need for PCs. IBM and all the other players considered the idea of Personal Computing to be a dead end and that no one besides Businesses would ever need Computing machines. You're seeing things through the lens of someone living in the 21st century.

>Douglas Engelbart
Invented the mouse, not the GUI.
Further, nothing precludes a GUI being operated by something other than a mouse (though they do go together nicely, I agree).