zorlnaviitukp00zmd

03.09.2022 07:57 •  Английский язык

составить 5 вопросов к тексту The real success of Microsoft Windows
My memory may be somewhat subjective, and I won’t claim that I’m completely
historically accurate, although I may have more relevant observations and
experience than many. When I think about the reasons for the continued success of
Microsoft, even as the market has changed, I consider the following:
Perhaps the biggest event during the early years occurred when IBM asked
Microsoft to write an operating system for the computer they were developing.
IBM believed that if personal computers were successful, they would not only
make their mainstream typewriter product line obsolete, but they may be a logical
successor to the typewriter and could potentially revolutionize the business for
IBM. It’s hard to know whether Microsoft co-founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen
predicted this as well, but when IBM asked for an exclusive licensing agreement
for the operating system software (MS-DOS), Microsoft denied exclusivity.

Microsoft bought the license for the code which would eventually become MS-
DOS from Seattle Computer Products (SCP) in 1986 for $925,000. Bill and Paul
predicted that if personal computing would be as successful as they assumed, and

if they were to license the operating system to multiple companies, rather than
solely to IBM, the total of the other companies combined would eventually exceed
even the reach of IBM. That was a huge risk for Microsoft, but it may have been
the best decision they ever made.
While the market was truly in it’s infancy at that point, aspiring computer
manufacturers, which would later be known as Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) attempted to set themselves apart from their competition by introducing
features and functionality that others may not offer. That was sort of another major
element in the Microsoft saga, which eventually proved to be brilliant in some
respects, but a technical vulnerability in others.
The good news for Microsoft and others, was that the landscape created
competition and innovation among organizations, many of which had unique needs
and market opportunities. The bad news is that it introduced a platform in which
the core was consistent, but there were variables which introduced technical
vulnerabilities which could later be exploited.