Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Bill Gates and PC history

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:06:44 AM PDT

With Bill Gates stepping down from his day-to-day role of running Microsoft, he's been receiving a great number of accolades about the role he played in history of the PC. Much of it is deserved. But some of it definitely ignores the reality of how the PC industry evolved and the effect that Bill Gates and Microsoft had, for good and bad, on technology innovation.


At the Microsoft farewell to Gates last week, successor Steve Ballmer is quoted as saying: "Bill was really there at the birth of the modern personal computer. Bill really designed the IBM PC. That's my non-revisionist history." Ballmer is unquestionably right about Gates being there from the earliest days with his implementation of Basic for the Altair 8800. And that was in and of itself a significant contribution.

Nonetheless, Ballmer is definitely revising history when he says Gates was responsible for the IBM PC revolution. That honor belongs to the late Don Estridge of IBM. If Estridge had not taken the very radical step at that time of going with an open architecture for the IBM PC - with off-the-shelf and non-IBM software - and if he hadn't convinced his superiors at IBM to go along with the idea, computing history would be extremely different. As talented as Gates is, he might very well have played an important role anyway, but without Estridge it's unlikely Microsoft would have even gotten into the OS business.

Once Microsoft got the contract from IBM for DOS (which originally stood for Dirty Operating System, since it was a blatant rip-off of the CP/M operating system), Gates deserves lots of credit for taking the ball and running with it. Dylan Tweney in Wired puts it very well when he says that Microsoft's eventual monopoly was essential to the development in creating "a de facto standard that permitted thousands of software and hardware companies to blossom." And we can all be thankful actually that Gates created that monopoly, because the alternative would have been an IBM monopoly. And as much as geeks loved IBM's OS/2 in comparison to Windows, IBM's proprietary outlook had reasserted itself even before Estridge's death in a plane crash. And with all the baggage IBM brought in terms of how it wanted the client-server world to work, it's a good thing that Gates was able to maneuver so very deftly to beat Big Blue in that fight. One has to wonder if anybody else could have pulled it off.

But since the introduction Windows 3.0 almost two decades ago, Microsoft's real innovations have been in ways to stifle competition. Gates did a little history revision himself in this regard in his farewell, saying "When we got it right, betting on graphics interface, even though we told our competitors that they should (do it) and tried to get them to do it, they didn't. By the time it was clear that it was a mistake, they were in deep trouble because we had done the work and we were there."

This of course ignores the fact that the graphics interface Microsoft was telling its competitors to use was OS/2, long after it had committed to Windows. And it also ignores the fact that Microsoft kept some of the operating system calls its own applications used secret. But, in the end, none of that really mattered. Lotus, Word Perfect, Borland, etc. were dead meat anyway once Microsoft radically slashed software prices with the introduction of the Office suite. With the cash cow of the operating system behind it, Microsoft was inevitably going to win no matter what the relative merits of its competitors' products to its own.

As CEO of a public company, it certainly was Gates' job to beat the competition anyway he could. But I think the real measure of Microsoft's impact on innovation in the Windows era is how few next-big-thing software ideas have emerged over these years. One is web browsers, and we all know what Microsoft did to Netscape there. Another is search, in which Google has escaped Netscape's fate only because along with a building mousetrap they came up with a better way of making money with it. And then there's Linux and Open Source, the very existence of which I think demonstrates how confining Microsoft's embrace on the industry has been.

Bill Gates deserves all kinds of praise because his impact on the software industry and technology in general has been enormous. But let's not revise history to pretend that his influence has been all to the good.

What do you think has been the effect of Bill Gates on technology innovation? Post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< Borderline searches and seizures | Google should defy court order >


Display: Sort:
Bill Gates and PC history | 26 comments (26 topical) | Post A Comment
Excellent Analysis[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by srynas on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:01:57 AM PDT

Microsoft has followed the typical growth pattern of American corporations.  It starts off as an entrepreneurial innovative company and ends up being a tired testy shell of its old glory that is now more concerned about protecting its turf than innovation.

Within that story there is another very important concept that Dylan Tweeny recognized. The explosive growth of the PC was the result of virtually everyone using the same same technology.

What has consistently amazed me is that the use of a common architecture (open source) is seldom recognized by corporate America as the source of our innovation.  Companies, including Microsoft, pump-up proprietary systems as fostering innovation not realizing that it actually frustrates innovation. In a sense, the story of Microsoft is similar to that of the Golden Goose.  In this case Microsoft is "killing" the goose by making its operating system (the egg) increasingly proprietary.


[ Reply to This ]



An alternate view[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by itoma on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

I don't know how much of this is precisely correct, because I've heard it from so many people over the years. But DOS was, as I've heard it, originally called QDOS (for Quick and Dirty Operating System), and was created by Seattle Micro as a rip-off of CPM, as mentioned. The selection of Microsoft as provider of DOS was related to Gates' mother being on the same board of directors (of a charity?) as the "head of IBM" (in the story I heard) and that led to his being considered as a vendor for IBM. Gates then agreed to develop OS/2 for IBM, purely as a way to prevent IBM from creating it while Microsoft developed Windows "to cover the short term" until OS/2 was ready. I can't think of a single product Microsoft sells that didn't originate with someone else. Sometimes they were purchased (FoxPro), sometimes they were copied (Excel, Word, Mac look), sometimes they were stolen (Stacker, etc.). I think the biggest effect Gates had was the invention of the present-day EULA, and the belief of software/hardware companies that they can do whatever they want to users as long as they say somewhere they're going to do it, either before or after the fact and before or after the sale. The only positive impact Gates had on the industry was the standardization on Windows, but I feel that is strongly outweighed by the criminal intrusions into personal liberties and established property law that he has inspired.

[ Reply to This ]


Credit for Tim Paterson's 86-DOS[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM PDT

I'm glad that Seattle Computer got a mention. As we get further away from the time they were suckered in to selling 86-DOS for $25,000 (because they didn't know IBM was involved), their position in the history of the PC keeps getting lost. But credit should really go to Tim Paterson, as perfectly described at Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS>. He took the good of CP/M and skipped the bad by some excellent programming.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gates and PC History[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Doc Robin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM PDT

Sorry for the repeat - thought I was registered... Gates may have provided the OS - but the PC would be another toy were it not for Lotus 123... That's why business bought in - and in those days who else could afford to (except for a handful of - as we called them then - hackers with a few thousand $$ to spare)? So Estridge got IBM to get the PC out of the gate with IBM's Imprimatur - Gates providing the OS for that initial plunge (and every one thereafter). But if we had to use the other spreadsheet of the day (Visicalc), it would have remained "at the gate"... Gates quickly saw that light, but wasn't able to capitalize on it until he "bundled" (old IBM strategy that) his "Dirty Windows" with Apps that worked together (more or less). So Excel bumped Lotus 123, Word bumped WordPerfect, and PowerPoint bumped Freelance - all of them a few functional cards shy of a full deck. But Windows didn't like 123, WordPerfect, or Freelance - by design??? The rest as they say is history...

[ Reply to This ]


Enough repeats?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM PDT

When you've already duped something, you don't need to post it a third time just to get your username at the top of it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Did you forget about VisiCalc??[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM PDT

Gates may have provided the OS - but the PC would be another toy were it not for VisiCalc...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Your column underestimates Microsoft's abusiveness[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Futurepower tm on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:48:16 AM PDT

Ed,

That's the worst column you have ever written, in my opinion. You have vastly, vastly underestimated how much Microsoft's abusive practices were the cause of it's "success".

There are so many abuses that it is impossible to mention them all here. There is "embrace, extend, extinguish". That just happened to the database language xBase, because Microsoft discontinued FoxPro.

There was the apparent lying to IBM about Microsoft's support for OS/2.

Another example: Back before Windows 95 was released, I got very irritated at Microsoft. There were only two ways to buy DOS. You could be a big computer maker, or you could buy an illegal, pirated copy from one of the six distributors in this area. Apparently that was an attempt to give the big computer makers a monopoly. I called the Microsoft legal department, and gave my complaints to someone who was apparently new there. She took the complaint, and that apparently forced Microsoft to take one of the pirates to court. I was a witness. But, to my knowledge, Microsoft never did allow smaller system builders to buy legal copies of DOS. Last time I checked, Microsoft had made it impossible to talk to anyone in the legal department.

Another example: At one time the top three word processors were: 1) Microsoft Word, for lots of money, 2) Microsoft Word, pirated, for $50, and 3) whatever was in 3rd place. My experience of Microsoft, and my opinion, is that Microsoft encouraging or allowing piracy of its products was a big factor in causing Microsoft products to become so "popular". It certainly wasn't excellence. It was, in my opinion, adversarial behavior.

[ Reply to This ]


Not quite[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by sconeu on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

From DOS 1.0 through 4.0, you could not "legally" buy a copy of DOS off the shelf.

Microsoft changed that with DOS 5.0.  

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Not much need[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM PDT

During that timeframe, all PCs were required to be shipped with an OS and almost always it was MSs. If you needed a specific version of the OS, it was sitting on a PC next to you and there were millions of copies on floppies that you could just load onto your machine.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Revising the revisionist history[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:08:16 PM PDT

Ed, if you're going to call someone on a revisionist history, at least get your facts straight!

The original name of what became MS-DOS was QDOS (for "quick and dirty operating system"). It was created by Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer, but was renamed 86-DOS before it every hit the market. This was what Bill Gates bought.

While 86-DOS was similar to CP/M, it was not a direct rip-off. And that would have been impossible anyway; the reason that it was created in the first place was that there was no 8086 version of CP/M. DR had been promising it for a long time, but it didn't appear until mid-1982. So they needed something to run their computers.

How do I know? I was there; we purchased a Seattle Computer PC late in 1980 (or was it early 1981? Not sure anymore); it came with 86-DOS 0.33. We had some issues getting it to run (mainly, we couldn't get the disk controller we needed), and thus only started running 86-DOS in early 1981. This proved to be lucky; when the long rumored IBM PC was released in August 1981, we already were working on a compiler for it (only because we were trying to get it to work on our Seattle Computer).

Bill Gates and Microsoft only came into this once 86-DOS already was a working system (and no longer had a goofy name). So blaming Bill for the goofy name and giving him credit for the OS is just plain wrong.

I believe I still have that Seattle Computer in storage - it was one of the best computers I've ever used. (Of course, it wouldn't be much use today - a 10 MHZ processor (after an upgrade) and dual 1.2Meg floppies!).

Randy Brukardt

[ Reply to This ]


DR-DOS ???[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by srynas on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:43:36 AM PDT

Wasn't there a DR-DOS that "broke" the 640Kbyte limit?  If I remember correctly, Microsoft did something which prevented this version of DOS,even though it was superior product, from catching on and becoming a commercial success.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


DR-DOS 6[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM PDT

Microsoft had placed "AARD code" into the beta of Windows 3.1, so that attempting to install 3.1 on non-Microsoft/non-OEM versions of DOS would produce an error message. There was no real incompatibility, just the faked one. Microsoft also proceeded to duplicate the memory-management features of DR-DOS into MS-DOS.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Maybe and maybe not -- there's another side[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM PDT

Sure, the anti-Microsoft side of the AARD story has been long-spoken, but have we heard the Microsoft side? Basically, "Yes, we admit it. We deliberately locked out DR-DOS, and we don't have to apologize for doing it. Windows was designed to run on MS-DOS or a 99.9% clone, and DR-DOS just isn't good enough because it's only a 90% clone." http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/08/12/213681.aspx

There's a bit of corroborating evidence for the Microsoft viewpoint, but the history is short enough that this will always remain a philosophical argument that can never really be proven one way or another. Basically, Windows worked just fine on IBM PC-DOS. Up until PC-DOS 5, it was identical to MS-DOS except for the two bootloader files. However, in version 6 IBM parted ways with Microsoft and developed PC-DOS on its own. So if Microsoft wanted to, it could've sniffed for PC-DOS and refused to run Windows 3.1 on it. But this didn't happen.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


640K "barrier"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Fushigi on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:47:23 AM PDT

Back in 1984 I had purchased a Zenith Z-151 PC clone. While it came with a reasonably impressive 320K RAM, when using SideKick and SuperKey together RAM became quite the rare commodity. I replaced the RAM PAL (Program Address Logic) chip and was able to upgrade to 704K of conventional RAM, all visible to DOS (MS DOS 2.11). I later replaced the 8088 with a NEC V20 for a minor speed bump.

That was a great PC. It went from power switch to A:> prompt in 4 seconds. And you could Control-Alt-Insert to get into a RAM debugger that allowed you to view & modify RAM on the fly. Great for cracking the old games.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Bill Gates and Al Gore: urban legends?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM PDT

As for Bill Gates inventing the IBM PC, this is about as true as Al Gore's invention of the Internet. Basically: about half-true. Al Gore was an early proponent of the NSFNet back when he was a Senator, and of course NSFNet was the bridging stone from ARPAnet to Internet. He didn't invent it (he never claimed he did), but he certainly helped to get it started.

So much for Al Gore. Now, here's the rumor mill version of IBM PC history. Many people have heard it, but nobody has any documentation. See, e.g. comment #18 on John Dvorak's post on the same subject (Ballmer claiming that Bill Gates invented the PC): http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18885.

Basically, it goes like this: Bill Gates who made all sorts of critical IBM PC design decisions basically by default, by saying: "Sorry, this is the way DOS is doing it, so you'd better change the hardware to conform." Stuff like the 640K memory limit. In other words, sure, there would've been an IBM PC without Bill Gates. But it'd look damn different.

So I wonder if, when Steve Ballmer deliberately put in this bit about "non-revisionist history," he's sort of tweaking people's noses. If you believe the story from the rumor mill, then you can see what he's saying. If you don't, or if you're reflexively anti-Microsoft, then you become even more outraged and say: "What are you talking about? Bill Gates stole DOS! Bill Gates didn't design the IBM PC!"

Or maybe that's too subtle for Steve Ballmer. I really don't know. But I've heard various versions of this story of the years -- the details change, but the gist is consistent -- Microsoft's role in the IBM PC was much larger than just DOS. Remember that there is such a thing as an open secret.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gates killed the BBS industry[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Rey on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:55:51 AM PDT

Did the Internet cause the demise of the worldwide BBS cottage industry, or was it Bill Gates targeting it to die? I'd say the latter without a doubt.

Prior to Windows, people phoned their local or long distance BBS with easy dial-up 3rd party programs seamlessly working with DOS. But when the popular Windows 3.1 operating system came out it was geared for Internet use and lacked a convenient tool to dial up on a telephone line. And there were no easy 3rd party dial up tools for Windows. Only the most knowledgeable and dedicated user could make it do that.

Bulletin boards lost their callers in DROVES step-for-step as people switched from DOS to Windows. The huge BBS Industry died in little over a year.

So about the time the Internet went from no advertising permitted to wide open commercialization, Bill Gates provided the way to build the net by starving the BBS industry. It was a great success and even those of us BBS sysops who lost know it was a good idea.

Does anyone remember when the Internet had no advertising? Here's a memory jogger adopted from LEGAL BYTES Spring 1994, Volume 2, Number 1 Copyright (c) 1994 George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P.

In April, 1994, the NYTIMES ran a story about a lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona, who posted an advertisement for his legal services on (uncommercialized) Usenet ... Lawrence A. Canter, advertised his firm's availability to represent immigrant clients ... He did not limit his posting to legal or immigrant newsgroups, but instead flooded practically all the active Usenet groups he could reach ... some 9,000 newsgroups.

This resulted in the expected deluge of negative responses accusing him of commercializing the Internet, a grave breach of Netiquette. Canter received an estimated 30,000 angry responses before his ISP cut off his service... Canter remained completely unrepentant, and in fact threatened to sue his Internet provider for cutting off his access.

That's how the commercialization of the Internet began ... trashed by a lawyer threatening suit . Wow, big surprise.
Rey in Virginia
[ Reply to This ]



Windows 3.1 "geared for Internet use"?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by rodak on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM PDT

I have to disagree with the comment that Windows 3.1 as "geared for Internet use".  There was no native TCP/IP stack until Windows 95.  Fitting Windows 3.1 for TCP/IP was an expensive, kludgy proposition.

No, there was no built-in "dial-up networking", either, but back then everyone used free or cheap 3rd party programs to dial into BBS's anyway - no one had heard of DSL or Cable Internet, and only large businesses had leased-lines to the Internet.  

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Windows 3.1 "geared for Internet use"?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM PDT

There was a "Windows for Workgroups" that had networking. Yes, Windows wasn't an end for BBSes. Not only could one run any of the DOS terminal programs on Windows, Windows even came with a terminal program, albeit a poor one. And I ran BBS software on both Windows 3.0 and 3.1 before I switched to OS/2. What was an end for BBSes was readily available Internet access for consumers, which early on happened in spite of Microsoft not believing in the open Internet.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


BBSes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

Come on, let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric. Who cares that consumer Windows 3.x didn't have a TCP/IP stack, and that Procomm Plus (ah, fond memories) ran fine on Windows just as it did on DOS. Microsoft is responsible for the death of BBSes because it's responsible for the death of anything decent in life.

I must say, this is the first time I've seen this theory about Microsoft killing off BBSes. I've seen lots of Microsoft conspiracy theories over the last twenty years, and I've never seen this one. Kudos for originality, I've got to save this page.

If you analyze it, though, it breaks down. Remember: BBSes tended to run on PCs running MS-DOS, while the Internet was basically 90% UNIX in the early 1990s (the other 10% was VMS -- DOS/Windows didn't really make a dent until maybe 1995-1996). If anything, Microsoft had a financial stake the other way.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What about Gary Kildall?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by rodak on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM PDT

I think he should at least be awarded "Honorable Mention" for Bill Gates' success.  At least, the way I heard it, IBM approached Gary first about using CP/M as an OS for the PC, and he ignored them, so they went to talk to Bill.  I wonder how different the computer industry might be today if Gary had said "ok".

[ Reply to This ]


Not necessarily any better[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

Gary Kildall was no saint, so we all would have been swearing at Gary instead of Bill. Actually there already was plenty of swearing at Gary by CP/M users at the time. And it was easier to port CP/M-80 applications to MS-DOS than it was to CP/M-86, so it probably would have slowed the adaptation of the IBM PC. On the other hand, that might have encouraged the adoption of Macs!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Ed's wrong -- Not OS/2, but Mac OS[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM PDT

And that brings us to Ed's point: "This of course ignores the fact that the graphics interface Microsoft was telling its competitors to use was OS/2, long after it had committed to Windows."

But if you give Gates the benefit of the doubt, what he actually seems to be referring to was not OS/2, but the original Apple Mac OS. There's this famous memo that Bill Gates wrote in 1985 to Bill Sculley at Apple, suggesting that they open up the OS to other OEMs to make it an industry standard. Apple, of course, decided to stick with its "One true computer company to rule them all" paradigm, and the rest is history.

In 1985, Windows 1.0 was floundering (came out a year late -- so what else is new), and Microsoft was really ramping up its Mac development efforts. Remember that Word and Excel were originally Mac products, and didn't get ported to Windows until after Windows 2.0. Bill Gates is right -- history could've been totally different.

If Apple had listened to him back in 1985, then Microsoft would be a pure-applications company today, with negligible OS market share. And Apple would have 95% of the market for OSes, with negligible hardware sales. Motorola would rule the roost with all the PowerPC Mac clones, and Intel would be a niche chip company. And Slashdotters would be saying things like "Apple suxx0r! Leopard sucks compared to Linux!" because it'd be crashing all the time as it attempted to cope with hundreds of OEMs and gazillions of hardware conflicts and poor drivers. Makes you think about these pivotal moments in history, doesn't it?



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Wilcox foxtrot tango?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:12:30 PM PDT

And Slashdotters would be saying things like "Apple suxx0r! Leopard sucks compared to Linux!" because it'd be crashing all the time as it attempted to cope with hundreds of OEMs and gazillions of hardware conflicts and poor drivers.

The last time I checked, Linux also runs on or has support for a lot of hardware from hundreds of OEMs. If Linux can do so without crashing all the time, then so could MacOS and so could Windoze if their vendors really tried.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Hardware support matrix[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:56:16 PM PDT

Linux supports lots of hardware, but not always fully. An audio driver may have stereo but not 5.1 surround. A video driver may only partially accelerate. I'm sure Apple and Microsoft could achieve the same thing if they had to. But neither does, because they aren't willing to live with the limitations. They go to opposite extremes with this -- Apple supports a very limited set of hardware, and Microsoft pushes most of the hardware support onto the hardware makers. Oops, I meant Linsuxxx, not Linux. Appl$, not Apple. And, of course, as you wrote, Windoze, instead of Windows. Phew. Glad that's out of the way.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: FUD[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM PDT

Nice FUD you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it, like, say, if I were to debunk it.

cough*Ubuntu*cough*lots of hardware supported fully*coughahem

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Great Article[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM PDT

Great Article, i agreee with youInternet Marketing 迷你倉 護膚 .

[ Reply to This ]


Bill Gates and PC history | 26 comments (26 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
3 comments

Thank you
14 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
73 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
8 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
8 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
30 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
7 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
18 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
33 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
54 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
33 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
18 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search