Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:21:06 +0930 (CST) From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: bob@luke.pmr.com Cc: grog@lemis.com, hoek@hwcn.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Status of USB, TX chipset, PIIX3, etc. Message-ID: <199708080351.NAA00720@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19970807224013.12227@pmr.com> from Bob Willcox at "Aug 7, 97 10:40:13 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Willcox writes:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 1997 at 11:09:23AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> Tim Vanderhoek writes:
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Greg Lehey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it comforting to see that even Big Blue wasn't able to continue
>>>> ruling the world?
>>>
>>> Maybe. If Microsoft was what followed IBM, then I shudder to
>>> think of what will follow Microsoft.
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't know. IBM was pretty hated in their day. But I
>> understand your concern :-)
>
> What, exactly, did IBM do during those days that made it so hated?
Good question.
> You see, I am a retired IBMer (veteran of 30 years)
Sure, I know that.
> and probably have a _very_ different perspective wrt IBM (I still
> believe that it is a good company, if sometimes misguided and
> suffering from its shear size).
I think you do, judging by our conversations.
> OTOH, I find Microsoft most apauling. While with IBM I often heard
> horror stories about how impossible it was to deal with Microsoft.
> Everything had to be their way or not at all. There was no possibility
> of compromise. Of course this is really just hearsay, since I never
> worked in an area that had to deal directly with Microsoft (thank God).
This is probably correct. I'm not sure, though, that it's so
relevant. It will be interesting to look back to the 90's in about 20
years time and analyse it then, but in the meantime, here's my take:
1. Nobody like a monopolist. IBM had a virtual monopoly on the
mainframe market in the 70s. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on
the PC software market now. That in itself is enough to make the
companies unpopular.
2. A monopoly doesn't have to worry about quality, service, etc. as
much as a small, struggling competitor. I think this showed
through with IBM's attitude, and it definitely does with
Microslop.
3. On the other hand, there are differences. I think you make a
valid point that IBM was thoroughly professional in their
approach, whereas I can't really say that for Microsoft.
But I think we can overestimate the meaning of this difference.
The industry has changed beyond recognition--the fact that IBM is
no longer number 1 is a good indication. I think that the market
in general has become less professional, perhaps thanks in part to
Billy Boy, but certainly also due to the competition from Asia.
4. This whole thing is probably cyclical. In the 1960s, IBM
recognized what the emerging computer market needed, and they
supplied it in a way which helped them to increase their lead from
their competitors. Microsoft did the same in the 80s.
Ultimately, I suspect, a sense of complacency and a lack of
interest in solving customer problems, combined with changes in
technology, caused IBM to come down from its pedestal. I'm sure
that the same will happen to Microsoft. Why is NT such a pig?
It's supposed to be a completely new start, but they've got so
locked into their corporate way of thinking that they can't really
start afresh.
Hmm. I'm rambling.
Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708080351.NAA00720>