Greetings.
On 25/01/2020 14.34, Lawrence Woodman wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but one thing that they did do is bring
> a common platform to million's of computers at a relatively low cost
> compared to CP/M.
I take it you're referring to the huge difference in price IBM was
charging for the two operating systems: according to Ars Technica [1],
this was $40 for PC-DOS (a licensed version of Microsoft's MS-DOS)
versus $240 for Digital's CP/M-86. But the same article suggests that
the overpricing of CP/M-86 may have been IBM's decision rather than
Digital's. At least, this is what Gary Kildall believed. So Microsoft
may not have been responsible for making their OS available at a
"relatively" low cost.
Regards,
Tristan
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/07/ibm-pc-history-part-2/
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
|
