|
c0d1
Mar 23, 2009 1:29 PM
|
Ft. Meade itself made your list, but not other DC Metro locations? I can't say that this was necessarily well researched as Ft. Meade and the local tech workforce made of mostly contract companies and a handful of IT companies found in nearby Columbia, MD is by no means small (after all Ft. Meade is "crypto city"), but by no means the largest concentration of IT workforce in the DC Metro area.
The Dulles Technology Corridor through northern Virginia has the largest concentration of IT (Verizon global headquarters, Sprint global headquarters, Microsoft, Sun, Level3, Unisys, IBM, just to name a few of the large IT companies settled in this area), it is also known for handling approximately half of all Internet traffic and is arguably second only to Silicon Valley in number of IT companies in the U.S.
It probably would be more accurate to replace Ft. Meade with the Washington DC Metro area, which also encompasses Ft. Meade.
Comment made about the PC Authority article: Top 10 IT locations? From Silicon Valley to Station X during the Second World War, why Romania is teeming with software developers, and Zhongguancun in China where Microsoft is building its Chinese headquarters.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
MJaggard
Mar 23, 2009 4:36 PM
|
I agree with the addition of Bletchley park, but it doesn't really help me - working for an IT company within a couple of miles. I think my salary should be increased due to my proximity to it! |
|
Evade
Mar 24, 2009 12:26 AM
|
You seem to have missed at least one very significant location: Israel (in particular the are just north of Tel-Aviv)
Israel has second highest concentrations of high-tech start up, (After Silicon Valley) Israel produces more high-tech patents per capita than any other country and second overall (after the US. It is the birthplace of the first commercial cell phone, many of Intel's chip designs, most of Windows NT, ICQ, AIM, VoIP and the firewall. This is by no means a complete list. |
|
chaimkut
Mar 24, 2009 2:12 AM
|
Take a look at Wikipedia's entry on Silicon Wadi ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Wadi ). " Many Israeli high-tech companies are based in the region, including Zoran Corporation, CEVA Inc, Aladdin Knowledge Systems, NICE Systems, Horizon Semiconductors, RAD Data Communications, Radware, Tadiran Telecom, Radvision, Check Point Software Technologies, Amdocs, Babylon Ltd., Elbit, Israel Aircraft Industries and the solar thermal equipment designer and manufacturer Solel, with most of them being listed on the NASDAQ, which even has an Israel Index. . . In 2006, more than 3,000 start-ups were created in Israel, a number that is only second to the US . . In 2007, the Economist considered Silicon Wadi to be second in importance only to its Californian counterpart. " |
|
Rambo Tribble
Mar 24, 2009 3:00 AM
|
Mr. Thomson has advanced the usual summation of Microsoft's rise on the back of Seattle Computer. Rarely, however is that series of events properly examined, nor is it actually the root of Microsoft's rise.
By all accounts, Bill Gates scammed Seattle Computer into selling DOS cheap. But did he really get away with it? Overlooked in this analysis is the fact that SC retained rights to any modifications MS made to the OS. At about DOS 3, SC also realized that the contract gave it rights to separately market the product. For a brief period one could buy Seattle DOS for about half of what MS DOS was selling for at the time. The products were bid-for-bit identical.
MS, of course, sued. They lost and then bought SC's remaining rights to the OS for an "undisclosed sum".
So the game was afoot, but rights to the code, by itself, did not create the rise of MS DOS and Microsoft. When the IBM PC came out, its systems were the most open of any microcomputer to date. IBM did this to encourage third-party development of peripherals, the demand for which IBM knew they couldn't fully satisfy. To protect the system from cloning, they copyrighted the ROM-BIOS of the PC. They fully believed this would prevent any cloning.
Early PC software often made direct calls to the BIOS, further IBM's PC-BASIC was in ROM and not entirely compatible with MS BASIC. As a consequence, MS-DOS compatible machines, which were introduced close on the heels of the PC, never ran PC software well and never gained much sales traction.
But IBM figured wrong. While Big Blue successfully sued many of the first crop of clone makers out of existence, others avoided infringement. Compaq made it through and prospered. Soon, with companies like Phoenix, Award and AMI making PC-compatible BIOSes a commodity item, the clones flourished. In short order the PC itself became a commodity. Software developers no longer targeted the IBM PC, but the more generic PC clones.
So, Gates and crew may have shafted SC, but the answer to that question lies in an "undisclosed sum". At any rate, it was the rise of the PC clone that allowed MS to sell its many, profitable MS DOS licenses. The acquisition of QDOS certainly set the table, but the feast was provided by others. This may help to explain the intrinsic paranoia of the MS culture. Knowing your success was not of your own making does tend to make the one more jealous of the prize. |
|
theuMask
Mar 24, 2009 9:13 AM
|
I'm sorry to say but the part about the Romania has very little connection with the reality. It is true there are really good developers around there, but it was no restriction about the majors for students, it's a big damn lie! I took the exams to get into university back in 1987 and I know what I'm talking about. Also, even there are a lot of online criminality in Romania, the majority of the criminals are phishers and carders, not malware writers. In fact I don't know a single piece of malware written in Romania in the last five years. It's true Microsoft bought GeCad RAV Antivirus, a romanian company, but only to kill the competition; RAV AV had a good piece of market of Linux clients at that time. They didn't use at all the technology from GeCad RAV. I'd like to suggest to the writer of this article to check thoroughly his sources, eventually to use more than one person from the above mentioned location. |
|
dedsetmad
Jun 15, 2009 6:25 AM
|
All of you folks w so much time on your hands....maybe you should all get a job, or if'n you got one already, maybe get 'nuther'n. So unproductive! Frank L-W would be writhing in his ashes. |
|
Slatts
Jun 15, 2009 1:07 PM
|
dedsetmad wrote: All of you folks w so much time on your hands....maybe you should all get a job, or if'n you got one already, maybe get 'nuther'n. So unproductive! Frank L-W would be writhing in his ashes. dedsetmad seems to be a dead set killjoy with a taste for necrophilia:-k
if'n people get some pleasure posting comments in forums, let'm. While they're doing that, they're not out on the streets doing nefarious stuff.o:) |
|
mickyj
Jul 10, 2009 10:28 AM
|
Rambo Tribble wrote:Mr. Thomson has advanced the usual summation of Microsoft's rise on the back of Seattle Computer. Rarely, however is that series of events properly examined, nor is it actually the root of Microsoft's rise.
By all accounts, Bill Gates scammed Seattle Computer into selling DOS cheap. But did he really get away with it? Overlooked in this analysis is the fact that SC retained rights to any modifications MS made to the OS. At about DOS 3, SC also realized that the contract gave it rights to separately market the product. For a brief period one could buy Seattle DOS for about half of what MS DOS was selling for at the time. The products were bid-for-bit identical.
MS, of course, sued. They lost and then bought SC's remaining rights to the OS for an "undisclosed sum".
So the game was afoot, but rights to the code, by itself, did not create the rise of MS DOS and Microsoft. When the IBM PC came out, its systems were the most open of any microcomputer to date. IBM did this to encourage third-party development of peripherals, the demand for which IBM knew they couldn't fully satisfy. To protect the system from cloning, they copyrighted the ROM-BIOS of the PC. They fully believed this would prevent any cloning.
Early PC software often made direct calls to the BIOS, further IBM's PC-BASIC was in ROM and not entirely compatible with MS BASIC. As a consequence, MS-DOS compatible machines, which were introduced close on the heels of the PC, never ran PC software well and never gained much sales traction.
But IBM figured wrong. While Big Blue successfully sued many of the first crop of clone makers out of existence, others avoided infringement. Compaq made it through and prospered. Soon, with companies like Phoenix, Award and AMI making PC-compatible BIOSes a commodity item, the clones flourished. In short order the PC itself became a commodity. Software developers no longer targeted the IBM PC, but the more generic PC clones.
So, Gates and crew may have shafted SC, but the answer to that question lies in an "undisclosed sum". At any rate, it was the rise of the PC clone that allowed MS to sell its many, profitable MS DOS licenses. The acquisition of QDOS certainly set the table, but the feast was provided by others. This may help to explain the intrinsic paranoia of the MS culture. Knowing your success was not of your own making does tend to make the one more jealous of the prize.
I found it very educational browsing the Microsoft Museum at Redmond. There are copies of the early CP/M Bill gates worked on right through to the historic agreement between Apple and Microsoft. Many of the early contracts etc and news articles are on show. I might have to dig up my photos and see if Seattle Dos featured in the display :) |