LookOUT 2007

[Rick Chadderdon]

sandrews at andrewscompanies.com wrote:
> If it weren't for MS and OS2 pushing Intel to develop faster
> microprocessors, the whole thing could have been lost to 390s and minis
> connected to dumb terminals.
>   

This argument relies on the assumption that if the x86 PC clones hadn't 
taken off none of the competing technologies of the time would have 
adapted.  "What if" scenarios aside, that's a bit much for me to 
swallow.  Hell, the Macintosh is still around *in spite* of the 
competition.  I doubt very much that if a PC clone market had failed to 
develop that the competition would have quietly died.  (I'd love to 
explore a few possible outcomes, but for the purposes of this discussion 
such speculation would be pointless.)

Anyway, what point are we trying to make here?  I think all Res was 
trying to say was that even without Microsoft, technology would have 
progressed to the point of those "huge servers".  I tend to agree.  
While it is undebatable that MS contributed mightily to the current 
state of home (and other non-mainframe) computing, it is quite 
unreasonable to assume that without them technology would have stood 
still or that small computers based on x86, 680x0 or other alternative 
technologies would not have become just as popular with other OSes in 
their stead.

> The agruement that Unix in it's non-linux form existed before that time
> is accurate; however, it was a huge cost and few trusted it on x86
> hardware at the time; oh yeah, and let's not forget that the 390s and
> the AS400s beat the crap out of it in raw performance AND the cost per
> transaction related to that performance.
>   

In 1993 I was considering starting an ISP based on home-made x86 
equipment and SCO Unix.  I was a bit late with the idea, however, and 
the market in my area became saturated before I'd secured enough funding 
to get under way.  The Unix/x86 solution came in at a tiny fraction of 
the cost of any of the mainframe solutions I evaluated, and I didn't 
really care about:

A.  Raw performance far in excess of what I needed, or
B.  The cost per transaction related to performance I didn't need.

Microsoft did not have a competitive server solution at the time which 
would have been suitable (in my opinion), better tested (NT4 was brand 
new at the time) or less expensive for the same feature set.

If you're trying to make the point that Microsoft provided the only x86 
alternative of the day, or even the best one for businesses, or was 
responsible in some way for inexpensive servers, I have to disagree.  In 
fact, at the time I saw almost no *servers* running a Microsoft 
operating system.  Again, while it's clear that Microsoft's 
contributions are a large part of where we are now, it's impossible to 
say where we'd be if MS had not existed, and I certainly don't see MS as 
having made a huge impact on the existence of inexpensive x86 servers.  
In the early-to-mid nineties, when x86 servers started appearing, very 
few of those that I encountered had a Microsoft OS on them.

Rick