> But what is spoiling the party is that the company was eclipsed last year as the largest personal computer software concern by the Lotus Development Corporation, creator of the highly successful 1-2-3 spreadsheet program. Lotus's revenues totaled $200 million for the 12 months ended June 30. Microsoft's revenues came to $140 million in that period.
Between the fact that it was in '85 (long before the days of windows 95/98 and microsoft really "taking over the world"), the revenue total that wouldn't even register as a margin error for today's dominating tech companies, the fact that a deal with IBM meant they had "won it", or that their main competitor is a company so that they utterly destroyed a decade later ... What a blast from the past.
The book is excellent, and analyzes battles with a clinical detachment not really found in most history texts.
But each battle is decisive: it shaped the world. There are many skirmishes that would be interesting to analyze but out of scope for the book. That's what makes it a fascinating collection.
If we had to think of 100 technology "battles" that reshaped the world, I wonder what they would be? There is so much freedom in the criteria that it's hard to know where to constrain it: Electricity, plumbing, grocery stores, etc have all shaped the world. Many had a "decisive" effect in that it was technology vs technology, and one tech came out the winner.
I think computing alone could fill a book of 100 tech battles, and it would be interesting to try. Which stories were decisive? It would take months to decide, but it would be enjoyable work.
I'd put the literal Battle of Crécy up there. An army of commoners being able to murder armored nobles with the aid of the longbow certainly changed the world.
English eventually lost Hundred's year war so this battle wasn't world changing. But not seeing Battle of Tours 732 or Vienna 1683 was certainly a surprise.
Interesting idea. Though I'm not sure how many battles there are where one tech won and other(s) lost and the result led to a significantly different path.
For example, VHS won out over Betamax but Sony remained a successful consumer electronics company and I'm not sure things would have played out in a materially different way had Betamax won. (Though maybe the industry would have been a bit more concentrated.)
AC electrical power over DC is probably one with implications. MS-DOS and Windows are certainly examples. As is Linux. x86? Maybe although I'm not sure how different the world would be if you swap in Motorola instead.
> the fact that a deal with IBM meant they had "won it"
The IBM deal meant that DOS was going to be the Operating System for IBM's Personal Computer and became the de facto OS for all IBM PC clones. That was the deal that made Microsoft and shaped the tech industry for a generation. Indeed they won it.
Oh I know that. I meant as a "how the role have reversed".
I could see in today's world how if Watson was picked as Windows' assistant instead of Cortana, news articles would talk about how IBM had "won it" with that project.
> Man OS/2 Warp was going to be AWESOME and than the infighting killed the whole thing. :(
OS/2 Warp was actually the IBM monopoly's last concerted attempt to kill little upstart Microsoft. One of IBM's senior managers at the time told me "We're going to burn Bill's butt."
By that stage, it wasn't infighting, it was war. (The infighting was Microsoft's attempt to get IBM to accept Windows NT as OS/2 version 3.)
As it happened, Microsoft had a very strong ally in Kirkland called ... IBM. Big Blue's PC division was interested in selling PCs and it was selling lots of PCs running Windows. PCs running OS/2 were virtually unsaleable.
Eventually, Gerstner arrived and told the OS/2 guys they'd lost and they should just stop.
Microsoft and IBM started the development of OS/2 because IBM wouldn't support Unix. (Microsoft had the most widely used Unix of the day, in Xenix.) IBM required a proprietary OS and had a long-running war with AT&T.
Microsoft backed OS/2 strongly but sales were, in Bill Gates's word, "dismal". It was a flop. However, Windows was a hit.
Microsoft wanted to go to a 32-bit OS/2 v3, which is what became Windows NT.
IBM had sold tons of 16-bit IBM PC/AT machines and insisted on a 16-bit operating system.
Hence the divorce, where Microsoft kept Windows and got a bundle of cash ($25 million, if I remember correctly). IBM got OS/2 and an ultra-sweet deal on Windows ($9 a copy, if memory serves).
Sadly IF Microsoft could have gone with Unix for it's servers I certainly would have stayed with System Admin. I got spoiled I had 3 VACs that I was working with that hooked up to 300 DOS PC with NetWare and 100 Apples with Tolken Rings!@!!!!123$!@#$@#%$ The VACs was where you could find me if I was hiding from the horrible mess of a network we had. The last Admin Job was at a library with Windows on the servers. I had to reboot them EVERYDAY according to our vendor's directions and I had to shut down all services to do tape backups. WHAT!!! I was done.
I don't think Microsoft really thought about the server market until NT4 came out, and people started using the "desktop" version on small servers....
However, the Unix business was a huge mess at the time. First, the all vendors were at war with one another, then they divided into two warring camps (SVR4 vs OSF).
While they were busing fighting one another, Microsoft nicked their cheese.....
Update: Of course, Windows NT was designed by the same guy as DEC's VAX VMS, so it's got that in its DNA. Maybe he was thinking of servers as well...
Between the fact that it was in '85 (long before the days of windows 95/98 and microsoft really "taking over the world"), the revenue total that wouldn't even register as a margin error for today's dominating tech companies, the fact that a deal with IBM meant they had "won it", or that their main competitor is a company so that they utterly destroyed a decade later ... What a blast from the past.