SciSchool.in

Me: Digital standards like TCP/IP, ISA, USB etc. are essential for the progress of the computer technology where there are many participants. How do you assess Microsoft compared to others. Give an opinion based on available evidence.

ChatGPT: That’s a sharp and important question — because standards are what make technology interoperable and thus capable of evolving. Without them, every company would build isolated ecosystems.

Now, if we judge Microsoft by its historic relationship with standards, the record is mixed — leaning toward self-serving divergence rather than open contribution. Let’s look at it factually and analytically.

1. Early years (DOS and Windows era, 1980s–1990s)

• IBM and hardware standards: In the 1980s, companies like IBM (with the ISA bus, BIOS, and PC architecture) and Intel (x86) defined hardware standards that enabled a vast compatible ecosystem.

• Microsoft’s role: Microsoft contributed software standards within its own world (e.g., the .DOC format, Win32 APIs), but these were proprietary and controlled solely by Microsoft, not open or collaborative.

  • Example: The .doc and .xls file formats locked users into Microsoft Office for decades.
  • The Windows API became a de facto standard, but through dominance, not openness.

Verdict: Microsoft benefited from open hardware standards but created closed software ecosystems on top of them.

2. The Web and Internet standards (1990s–2000s)

• The open world: The Internet grew on open standards — TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, DNS, SMTP — all developed by communities like IETF and W3C.

• Microsoft’s record: Infamously, Microsoft tried to extend and fragment these standards during the Internet Explorer era:

  • Introduced proprietary HTML and CSS tags, ActiveX, and VBScript, making pages behave differently in Internet Explorer.
  • This broke cross-compatibility and gave rise to the phrase “Best viewed in Internet Explorer.”
  • The U.S. and EU antitrust cases (1998–2004) documented such tactics as attempts to undermine open standards and preserve monopoly power.

Verdict: Microsoft acted as a standards saboteur during the crucial years of web formation.

3. Post-antitrust and open-source era (mid-2000s–present)

• Under pressure and new leadership (Nadella era), Microsoft has partially reversed its stance:

  • Adopted open formats (e.g., Open XML standardized via ISO, albeit controversially with heavy lobbying).
  • Moved to Chromium base for Edge (accepting the W3C standard web engine).
  • Contributes to Linux kernel, open-source projects, and participates in standard bodies like ISO and ECMA more responsibly.
  • Created .NET Core as open-source, aligning with open tooling ecosystems.

Verdict: Microsoft has become more cooperative, but largely reactive — adapting to an open world it can no longer dominate, rather than pioneering openness itself.

4. Compared to others

IBM Foundational — ISA, PC, Unicode, POSIX, early Internet work Collaborative, research-driven Intel PCI, USB, Thunderbolt, x86 extensions Hardware-centric, industry partnerships

Apple Proprietary ecosystems, occasional selective standardization (e.g., USB-C) Closed innovation, design-first

Google Heavy promoter of open web standards (HTML5, Android Open Source, etc.) Open but self-serving in data/services

Microsoft Initially hostile, later conforming and contributing to open standards Reactive openness

Overall Opinion

Microsoft’s relationship with digital standards has historically been extractive rather than generative — it leveraged open standards created by others to build closed ecosystems for profit. Only after public and legal pressure, and a shift in industry power, did it become a partial participant in open standardization.

In short:
Microsoft followed the standards when it had to — and fought them when it could.

Would you like me to add a short table of specific standards (e.g., USB, HTML, TCP/IP, etc.) and how Microsoft positioned itself toward each? That could make the assessment even more concrete.

Here’s a compact table of major digital standards and Microsoft’s stance or involvement with each — showing a clear pattern over time:

🧩 Microsoft and Key Technology Standards

TCP/IP DARPA / IETF Internet networking Initially resisted, preferred proprietary NetBEUI; adopted TCP/IP only after 1993 when the Internet’s success was undeniable Late adopter, follower

HTML / CSS / HTTP W3C Web interoperability Extended HTML with proprietary tags (ActiveX, marquee, etc.); caused IE-specific web fragmentation Saboteur, non-compliant

OpenDocument (ODF) OASIS / ISO Open office format Fought it, pushed its own “Office Open XML” (OOXML), which passed ISO under heavy political pressure Manipulator

USB Intel + others Universal peripheral interface Adopted readily; Windows drivers helped make USB mainstream Positive participant

PCI / PCIe Intel-led consortium Hardware expansion interface Fully compliant; benefited from open PC hardware standards Beneficiary, not innovator

Unicode Unicode Consortium Global text encoding Early adopter (Windows NT); contributed to development Constructive

POSIX IEEE / ISO UNIX compatibility Partially supported but never fully compliant; used proprietary APIs instead Isolationist

DirectX / OpenGL / Vulkan Khronos Group (OpenGL/Vulkan) Graphics and multimedia APIs Promoted DirectX instead of OpenGL to lock in Windows gaming Proprietary gatekeeper

SMTP / IMAP / POP3 IETF Email standards Supported but wrapped with proprietary Exchange extensions (MAPI) Semi-open

Kerberos / LDAP MIT / IETF Network authentication Implemented customized, non-standard extensions in Windows domain controller Modified standard to lock-in

.NET / C# (ECMA-334, 335) ECMA / ISO Programming platform Initially closed; later standardized core parts after pressure Partial openness

Git Linus Torvalds / Open Source Distributed version control Adopted it fully after 2010s (GitHub acquisition) Follower

Linux / POSIX ecosystem Open Source community OS and tools Initially hostile (Ballmer: “Linux is a cancer”); later contributor under Nadella Reactive cooperation

🧭 Summary Judgment

1980s–1990s Built on open hardware, rejected open software Closed monopolist 2000s Tried to hijack or redefine standards Defensive manipulator 2010s–2020s Adopted open collaboration under industry pressure Reactive conformist

💬 Final Opinion

Microsoft did not shape the digital commons through generosity or openness; it shaped it by resistance, capture, and eventual compliance.
Its technical contributions are significant — but its standardization record is largely that of a dominant player dragged, not leading, into openness.