From: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communist
Reply-To: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Organization: Universitaet Hildesheim, RZ
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:05:41 GMT

In article 3568@tc.cornell.edu, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <rhoward.724964340@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>>The problem is that I cannot call my local clone vendor and
>>get a PC with DR-DOS installed.  Why?  Because MS has used
>>their enormous market presence to, in effect, force that
>>PC maker to install MS-DOS on *all* PCs they make.  Even
>>if they don't send out my PC with MS-DOS on it, MS gets the
>>licensing fee anyway.  So if I *really* want DR-DOS, it costs
>>me money (to go and purchase it), and time (because I have to
>>install it over MS-DOS).  DR-DOS had better be *damn* better for
>>most people to bother with that....
>
>That is because people dont bother with a new operating system
>until they clearly see the advantage of purchasing it. So it
>is PEOPLE, not MS who "do" the monopoly. 

People don't create monopolies - companies do.
If M$ didn't have those contracts with computer vendors, who
knows how much of M$-DOS 5.0 or even Window$ would be sold?
As a computer vendor you have to deal with quite a lot of
competition. So you look around to find out, which software
is the cheapest to install on your systems.
If companies wanted to install DR-DOS and WIN, they'd have
to buy MS-DO$ for every system and try to either sell it
separately - or trash it.
In any case: a rise in purchase price for the vendor, and
probably a rise in selling-prices for the customers.
Now the big question: does _that_ seem like something,
you'd like???

>Of course there is an advantage to the company who does things 
>first. But they have to do it. MS did, others did not. Is not
>it fair to compensate a company who did things before everybody 
>else ? I think it is. Otherwise we would have stagnation

As far as I remember (correct me, if I'm wrong), M$ was not the first to
create/develop M$-DOS, they were the first to buy the licenses from a
quite small company. It used to be called (same as above) Seattle-DOS.
This was the base for creating M$-DOS 1.0.
But: who talks about Seattle-DOS today?

About compensation: I also think that it is fair for a company to have
a certain success with a product they sold before others developed
concurrents. But exactly how long did it take, until M$-DOS got real
competition... CP/M? DR Concurrent-DOS? Other OSes, created by smaller
companies? OS/2 1.x? DR-DOS!

In other words: M$ had a quite good position in OS sales.

It does look a bit different if you consider GUIs. GEM was good, but
DRI slept while M$ kept on developing Window$. Desqview is, as far
as I see it, competition as multitasking enviroment, but as GUI?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Frank Leskova        -- E-Mail: fles0092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- Oderstr. 10 B        --   or  : fles1092@rz.uni-hildesheim.de         --
-- 3000 Hannover 71     --                                               --
-- Germany              -- Tel.  : ++49 - 511 - 51 22 16                 --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy