HOME
TOPICS
ABOUT ME
MAIL

 
By getting us used to the idea of upgrading the operating systems on our PCs, Microsoft forced us to realize that PCs had two parts. One part was the hardware, and the other was the operating system.
  technofile
Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983

How Microsoft set the stage for Linux and other operating systems


June 17, 2000

By Al Fasoldt
Copyright ©2000, Al Fasoldt

   Microsoft had grand plans for Windows. It was going to run on computers of all sizes, from ones so tiny they could fit in your ear to ones so big they would hardly fit on a desk.
   But something happened on the way to world domination. To keep its profits high, Microsoft had to come up with newer versions of Windows every few years. It had to get us to buy them by insisting that they were easier to use and could do things the previous versions couldn't do.
   Regardless of whether Microsoft was right or not in these claims, what matters as we look back on the history of PCs is the attitude Microsoft took toward change. The company's primary business goal was not to improve its product but to make it universal. To do that, Microsoft had to prime the operating system pump; it had to get as many PC owners as possible, at universities, in businesses and at home, to buy new versions of Windows every few years. If "upgrades" didn't bring enough money in, Microsoft could count on the sales of new PCs. Windows users who were tired of the problems of their old PCs could be counted on, according to Microsoft's way of thinking, to give up on the old computers and buy new ones. With Windows already installed, of course.
   It was here that Microsoft made its biggest mistake. It was in this process that Microsoft opened the door to Linux and to all the other operating systems that will challenge Windows in the coming decade.
   By getting us used to the idea of upgrading the operating systems on our PCs, Microsoft forced us to realize that PCs had two parts. One part was the hardware, and the other was the operating system. It became a simple step in logic to undermine Microsoft's goals. If PCs got better by replacing one version of Windows with another one, then maybe PCs could get MUCH better if you replaced the operating system with something besides Windows.
   Consider the fix Microsoft put itself in. Clearly, the company had expected "PC" and "Windows" to be synonymous. It did everything it could think of to force PC manufacturers to sell the hardware and the operating system as a unit. When you bought a PC, you got a PC with Windows. (Do you know anyone who ever asked if another operating system were available?)
   But the prospect of a constant river of profits was too enticing. The company created Windows 95, Windows 95B, Windows 95C, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME (the version due out in the summer or fall of 2000) and Windows 2000. (And Windows 2000 comes in three versions, too.)
   Microsoft wants you to buy and install a revised version of Windows. It wants you to that soon. Or, even better, it would love to have you purchase a new PC just so you can get an even newer version of Windows. The success of this plan requires your cooperation in two very important matters: You have to know that every PC has an operating system, and you have to know that the version of Windows you are using now is not good enough.
   Earth to Bill Gates! We're getting the message. Especially the second part.