But slowly, as I got more and more into the history of computing, and started to learn about key figures in the industry, the more I started to learn of new people to have respect for, and some other people, companies, and whatnot, to NOT have respect for.

Microsoft has a pretty dirty history. The company started with it's first product, BASIC, in 1975. BASIC was a programming language developed in 1964 by John Kerney and Thomas Kurtz at Dartmouth college. The way a lot of books read back then, and even websites, they made it sound like Microsoft "Innovated" with BASIC, but the truth was, nothing they ever created, was truly theirs.

Continuing with their streak of "innovation", in 1978, Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products made a quick and dirty clone of Digital Research's CP/M (Control Program/Monitor) - Gary Kildall's company (the very same Gary Killdall who appeared on the Computer Chronicles with Steve Chifet), anyway, Tim made the O/S to test out a new 8086 minicomputer that SCP Was working on. Not sure how anyone at Microsoft figured out he had the O/S, but what I do know is the story was they bluffed IBM that they had a *new operating system* for their soon to be released "IBM PC" (released in August of 1981 - and the ground zero for pretty much all "Wintel" PCs created since), and then bought the CP/M clone for $15K. I don't think TIm had any plans of using it for anything, hence the sale. But then after that, just like BASIC, Microsoft "invented" DOS. Furthermore, they setup the contract so they could sell it as "MS-DOS" while IBM got the "PC-DOS" version.

Many other products with them came this way. Did you know Microsoft Paint isn't even a Microsoft program, but rather, was the result of Microsoft buying out ZSoft and then re-employing Paint for both DOS (bundled with early Microsoft Mice), and as a early Windows Program (actually, the version we see in Windows 3.x). It's also said that this happened with a lot of programs.

Now, this isn't the primary reason for me to ditch all things M$ in my personal life. But these definatley were factors I considered. Even Windows itself wasn't even original - both Microslop and Apple stole the idea from Xerox! Xerox didn't sue, as they were more focused on making copy machines than computers I assume, but Apple came first with System Software (now called MacOS) in 1984, and then Microsoft punched out Windows 1.0 in 1985 to little/no fanfare.

The reason Microsoft had a strongsuit is three letters - I, B, and M - as in International Business Machines. These guys were like the Mercedes of the desktop PC, they weren't the first, but they were the ones that got the ball rolling for themselves through making Mainframes for almost 30 years by the time the PC 5150 came along. And old-school Armonk New York IBM Made a tough as nails, rock solid, stable PC. I'm sure tens of thousands of original IBM PC, PC XT, PC AT, PS/2, PS/Valuepoint, PS/1, and PC-3/7xxx machines still roam the earth churning away at retrocomputing tasks because these little monsters were built to last. The only reason I don't own one anymore, is because they are fuggin' expensive - but they're expensive for a reason, they're the first, IBM, and they're some of the best vintage PC hardware you can come across.

Windows, also, was a low-quality product that failed to really get anywhere, until Microsoft started taking it seriously, which didn't happen until about 1992 or so with Windows 3.1. Even then, it still didn't pass the muster of the average populace until 1995. I'll be honest, I liked 3.1x quite a lot, and in a lot of way, moreso than Windows 95.

I feel like it's now understated and massively forgotten just how IMPORTANT Windows 95 actually was in the PC industry.

If you watered PC history down, there was BEFORE Windows 95, and AFTER Windows 95. Windows 95 was the Catalyst of everything bad we have now, but nobody will want to admit it, because it was, indeed, a catalyst to many GOOD things as well (many of which are dissappearing).

Prior to WIndows 95, nobody knew who Bill Gates was except a handful of people, and those who knew just knew of him as a mere "nerd" stereotype. Nobody knew what Microsoft was unless they owned a PC, and even then, they didn't know much about the company, or what they did other than make DOS and some other applications. Microsoft was just a "nerd company" for "business nerds" that made "business software" for boring suit-and-tie "business people" - that's it.

AFTER Windows 95, Bill Gates became the richest man in the world, and someone to aspire to be by the average NPC. Microsoft basically WAS the computer - just like how us gamers said "Playing Atari" or "Playing Nintendo" rather than "playing video games". "PC" became a ubiqutous centerpiece of modern living, as that and the internet entwined their existence, and gave a purpose to the other's reason for existing. Apple was about to die off! Few had an Apple on their desktop in 1995.

Now, Windows 95 DID bring us some good things, but they were all double-edged swords. It brought us internet as an integral functionality to the O/S, making it more accessible to other people (Internt Explorer, Internet Connection Wizard, Internet Connection Sharing, Active Desktop...etc), but it also meant that the company providing that functionality could control, or even lock-down or at least strong-arm you against any real choice you had in what browser to use or even the ability to remove that functionality on a computer that didn't require it. The root to all the SaaS, 24/7 connected device crap, starts with Windows 95! And slowly, over the last 30+ years, Microsoft has been turning up the screws of control on the O/S.

It also brought us some of the WORST things for an O/S.

First off, and this is also a part of IBM and everything else - was the PC Genre as a whole. The PC Genre, at that time, had already 10-15 years of growth as the standard "Ecosystem" for computing for business worldwide. This myopic view of business by non-technical people, is what was paving the road to the hell we have now where every corporation uses Microsoft Windows 11 for it's main O/S, where every I.T. department has to deal with SaaS licensing issues, where every home user has to worry about a monthly payment for all their computer services. If you put over 2 billion dollars into your I.T. Infrastructure over the course of 40 years, would YOU be openly willing to switch to an OpenSource solution like Linux? I'm pretty sure not! Because the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. This means you'd have to replace at least SOME of the hardware, have downtime to replace the appliances, servers, SAS, SANs, and whatnot, with the new ecosystem, and what was compatible still would need reconfigured to work with the new ecosystem. All this takes manpower. And then there's the nightmare of retraining your users....which by the way, ALSO plays into this...

Because secondly, the IBM Compatible PC has been the dominant workstation for the masses ever since, and was still a force to be reckoned with back in the DOS days. These people at home in 1994, despite Linux already being 4 years old, didn't even know WHAT LInux was - was it a virus? Was it the name of some new computer nerd trying to compete with Microsoft (haha, fat chance), was it a new internet site? Your average NPC, "non-techie" doesn't know, nor do they care. They just want the damn thing to work, and to them "work" means "Microsoft Windows" because "everything is (just barely) in the same place I recall it being, and all my files work with it". It's the same reason the average lamestreamer won't leave Google, Meta, Apple iPhone, or any other mainstream service or company, because it's SAFE, and they're too scared to learn, too scared to change, and too scared to invest in something else, because that something else isn't tied into a late-stage capitalism company run by a familiar guy who talks like their fun loving next door neighbor on TV.

And admittedly, I was one of those NPCs. When I started off The Creeping Network 25 years ago, my whole intent of running Windows and DOS, was because I was FAMILIAR With it. My limited skillset at the time was Windows 3.1, and Windows 9x. I needed those "water wings" if you will to keep me afloat until I learned how to do what I'm doing better.

But where I differed, from the minute my bandmate Hawk's father told me about Linux, was I KEPT that in mind. I kept the idea of alternatives in mind for years. For the better part of 20 years, I basically dual-booted Linux occasionally, and kept tabs on it's changes and development. I feel by 2018, it's good enough for a regular user to be using. Which was why I switched.

I also worked for the company, and I'll say as little here as possible, but where I'm at now and will be in the future is a far better disposition than a contractor for a fortune 5 software company that makes money by screwing it's users over. It was great at first but soon turned as if we, the support staff, were to supposed to act adversarial by "pushing the issue back on the user" - and that's something I don't agree with.