The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
https://f.osdev.org/
Ballmer.m12 wrote:Gates founded microsoft by himself, competing against previously existing companies. Of course, he did have steve jobs as a partner.
Allen. Okay, Gates knew Ballmer quite early and he was invited to Microsoft somewhere in early 80's or something, but Microsoft had been up and running for several years at that point.Blacklight wrote:Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve.
No, Gates founded Microsoft with Allen, and I wouldn't really compare writing a BASIC interpreter for a small microcomputer during a time when microcomputing wasn't really a big deal to competing with huge corporations nowadays. Of course there was an era when Microsoft was at least in some people's eyes the small and humane company struggling against huge and faceless IBM, but at that point Microsoft was already quite well established company.m12 wrote:Gates founded microsoft by himself, competing against previously existing companies.
Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.fronty wrote:Allen. Okay, Gates knew Ballmer quite early and he was invited to Microsoft somewhere in early 80's or something, but Microsoft had been up and running for several years at that point.Blacklight wrote:Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve.
Either I don't remember correctly what Ballmer did at Microsoft in it's early days, or your reasoning or way of representing it is too hard for me at 0400.Blacklight wrote:Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.
Apple didn't have a Paul.
Ballmer was Microsoft's Steve. Allen was Microsoft's Paul. m12 said that Jobs was Microsoft's Steve. He wasn't. Ballmer is.fronty wrote:Either I don't remember correctly what Ballmer did at Microsoft in it's early days, or your reasoning or way of representing it is too hard for me at 0400.Blacklight wrote:Except Allen was Microsoft's Paul.
Apple didn't have a Paul.
IBM were the major player in the success of Microsoft, and their first big customer. I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.fronty wrote:Of course there was an era when Microsoft was at least in some people's eyes the small and humane company struggling against huge and faceless IBM....
Maybe this conception comes from "IBM OS/2 vs. Windows era" but I there is no doubt that Microsoft is this big only because of IBM in early 80s.iansjack wrote:I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.
Yes, I don't know why I used the word struggle. But I remember running to the "small and humane" v. "big and faceless", but most certainly not exactly in the sense I wrote.iansjack wrote:IBM were the major player in the success of Microsoft, and their first big customer. I don't think that I have ever (until now) heard anyone seriously suggest that Microsoft struggled against them.
Possibly, but illogical as OS/2 was a joint venture between Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft were clever and backed both horses; heck, they just couldn't lose whatever happened.Maybe this conception comes from "IBM OS/2 vs. Windows era"
Yet, about half a year ago, it did. Now, probably not. In 5 years, once you've completed it, who knows? It's impossible to predict.iansjack wrote:Most of the big companies were not started by a single individual. Typically, as with Microsoft and Apple, it is a pair of buddies. And the trick seems to be to have a novel product at just the right time. I would very much doubt that, right now, a new Operating System fits that description.
The difference between one person and two people, even given the "multimillion employee companies" is quite large (Though I doubt any single entity employs even close to 1 million people, I think you meant multi-thousand) The difference between two and three people is all down to the personalities of those people.m12 wrote:Yet, about half a year ago, it did. Now, probably not. In 5 years, once you've completed it, who knows? It's impossible to predict.iansjack wrote:Most of the big companies were not started by a single individual. Typically, as with Microsoft and Apple, it is a pair of buddies. And the trick seems to be to have a novel product at just the right time. I would very much doubt that, right now, a new Operating System fits that description.
Point taken, though. Also, in comparison to multimillion employee companies, what is the difference between one person and a pair of buddies?
Not really. I despise complex systems tied to multi-million-dollar companies (typically Microsoft). I want to work with hardware or natural abstractions, not complex abstractions that requires extensive knowledge of somebody else's APIs that typically are badly designed just to stand-out or because of compability-bagage. Primarily I dislike most abstractions that others have done, and think I could have done them so much better myself. So why work with other's bad abstractions when I can work with my own?Love4Boobies wrote:Sounds like you really despise scalability coupled with abstraction.rdos wrote:I don't need to learn "cloud programming".