Hacker News Reader

I think 90s Microsoft could have something of a claim.

It made a lot of sharp business choices in that decade, but it also left a LOT of money on the table for developers, as part of a strategic goal to grow the platform.

Then the 00s came, platform growth slowed (because they were already running on everything desktop), and the "vs linux" decisions started coming.

View on HN

Eh, I wouldn't say the say they handled the whole DR-DOS saga very reputably. And in 2001 they came to within an inch of their life in US v. Microsoft, a litigation mainly based on anticompetitive practices from the 90s.

Microsoft was disreputable in the 90s to the point they were almost broken up several times.

Microsoft's battle against Netscape (which is also part of the show Valley of the Boom), and the Halloween documents, are two more examples.

It bleeds over into ethics at some point.

Microsoft in the DOS days was still fighting hard for market. Microsoft in the Netscape days? Eh... less of a competitive claim. Post ~2005? No claim.

For me, the definition of "reputable" changes when you're a competitor among equals vs when you're a monopoly.

They were a monopoly since the '90s.

Okay, maybe 90s MS could've, but I have a feeling that's 30 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com