Revised:  June 12. 2001

• Stephenson talks about the odd idea of selling "operating systems" which are intangible, just files of code.
• "Webmind's Digital Environment" explains what an Operating System  is and why it is important.
• Apple was the first to market a GUI operating system, although it was first developed by Xerox who made a corporate decision that it was not worth developing.  We see this in the Revenge of the Nerds.
• Stephenson likes the BeOs operating system, which he finds esthetically superior.  Yet almost everyone uses Windows.  Why?  The Windows Monopoly which we will discuss below:.
• Differences between BeOs, Windows, MSDOS and Linux, Unix, Appledos and other operating systems.  Apple just introduced a new OS.
• Supercomputers vs. MainFrames vs. Personal Computers.  Essentially a matter of computing power, the number of calculations that can be done per second.  However, computing power is becoming cheaper and cheaper, so the distinctions are less meaningful
• Parallel vs. Serial architecture - does the computer do one many things at once or one thing at a time?  The brain is parallel, vonNeumann design computers are serial.  Early AI was done on parallel computers, but today almost everything is done on serial computers because they are cheap.  But for super-powerful applications, developers are going back to parallel architecture: IBM Plans New Computer to Work at the Speed of Life
• Parallel computers vary between SIMD, "single-instruction, multiple dataset" and MIMD, "multiple instruction, multiple dataset" which is more brain-like.
• Analog vs. Digital - almost all computers today are digital but there are still some analog computers.
• Networking has made it possible to have a number of Serial computers working simultaneously and exchanging information. This seems to be the way more powerful artificial intelligence will evolve

• The earliest computer software was written in "machine language" which consisted of 0’s and 1’s, that gave specific instructions to registers in the Central Processing Unit. Programmers had to know exactly how the machine did everything it did.
• The next step was "assembly language" which uses alphabetic key words to write patterns of 0's and 1's.  This was still pretty close to the logic of the machine, but was a lot faster to write.
• Next came "high level" languages such as FORTRAN and BASIC, which used words and numbers similar to mathematical algorithms, e.g., one might write:
• FOR N = 1-190; GRADE(N) =  TESTS(N) + HOMEWORK(N) + ATTENDANCE(N); NEXT N
• A better example of "high language" programming language is the BASIC code for the Eliza Catterbot program.
• With high level languages, programs were not specific to a computer - there was a program called a "compiler" which converted the high level program to a form that could be understood by the "operating system" of a given computer.   The operating system is software which enables standard programs to run on any compatible computer.  Programmers did not have to know as much about hardware.
• JAVA is another step away from the details of the machine.  In a JAVA program, instructions are sent to a program called the "JAVA virtual machine" which translates them into codes which can be read by different operating systems.
• Early computer programs were organized around procedures (e.g., SORT, ADD, PRINT).  Programmers called up the procedures they needed them to process data, which was stored in a separate place. As programs got larger and larger, and especially when many programmers worked on them, this became cumbersome.  "Object-oriented" programs were created.  In these programs, the procedures and data are bundled together.  If one programmer needs to modify procedures for his or her purposes, those modified procedures can go into his or her "objects" without messing everyone else up.
• But programmers cannot be constantly reinventing the wheel each time they create an object.  They have general models or patterns or archetypes they rely on - in programming language these are called "classes".
• This "object-oriented" approach analogous to the logic of the brain, where there are thousands of independent units which have many features in common.

    Webmind was first written in JAVA, now being rewritten in C++ - its basic units are "nodes" which are "objects" in JAVA or C++, which runs much faster.
    The nodes are arranged in a hierarchy:  from lobes to pods to nodes.  Nodes relate
    more easily to others in the same place in the hierarchy. But they can also form form
    heterarchical links, crossing hierarchical lines.
    There are several types of links between nodes:
        similarity links, representing the belief that one actor is similar to another.
        inheritance links, representing the belief that one actor is a special case of another.
        spatiotemporal links, representing the belief that one actor represents something
        occurring near the other one in time or space.
        containment links, representing the belief that the entity represented by one actor
        is contained inside another one.
        associative links, representing simply the fact that Webmind's dynamics tend to
        associate one actor with another.
    Webmind is not created with a fixed body of knowledge, it learns by reading text,
    numerical data and (in the future) other kinds of information
    As a Webmind assimilates information, it organizes it into modules.  It also develops
    modules to record its memories of how it does things, such as the:
        The Categorization Module which creates new categories
        The Text-Numerical Interrelation Module, which remembers how text and numbers
        are interrelated
        The Query Module which remembers how to interact with humans and respond to
        their questions
        The Social Module which manages relationships between Webminds and between
        Webmind and people
        The Self Module, which maintains a simplified image of everything going on within
        the Webmind
    The really tricky thing about Webmind is how all these nodes and modules are
    coordinated to make a coherent whole.  This coordination is what makes true
    intelligence possible.  There are several methods of coordination:
        Each of Webmind's components learns how to take the needs of other components
        into account, giving them the information they can best use
        Sometimes, one module is defined as dominant, and others are forced to defer to it
        Sometimes, modules take turns being dominant, each of them adjusting to the
        others for a period of time.   New thoughts emerge from this process of mutual
        readjustment.
        Sometimes, the Self module intervenes and sorts things out.
 

The Microsoft Lawsuit - A legal case involving the dominance of an operating system.
 
• The Microsoft anti-trust case is different in many ways from previous cases.
• It does not involve a merger or "trust" but rather a single corporation which rose to a monopoly position.
• It involves highly technical issues, so much so that Microsoft seemed to assume the Judge and lawyers really could not understand them.  If you read the Findings of Fact in the case, they go to considerable pains to explain basic technical issues, such as:
• the components of a personal computer
• the functions of an "operating system" and an "Application Program Interface"
• the nature of the Internet, the WWW, a home page, an Internet Access Provider - includes Online Services such as AOL and Internet Service Providers that provide little but Internet access
• a "network computer system" - a possible future competitor to PC based systems, in effect Internet Terminals.  These are likely to be marketed in a big way especially to schools over the next few years.  No hard drive, but provide WEB  access and access to the institution's internal systems.
• the likely impact of bandwith improvements - people may stop using their own PC's for many functions and rely on online software.  Microsoft is producing this also.
• browsers could also serve as platforms for running software
• the case is based on the argument that Intel-compatible PC operating systems have a monopoly, although this is challenged by Apple and Linux.  This is disputed:
• The court's "findings of fact" say: "Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating  systems is extremely large and stable. Second,  Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of  that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows."  and that "Consumer demand for Windows enjoys positive network effects. A positive network effect is a phenomenon by which the attractiveness of a product increases with the number of people using it. The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows         makes the product more attractive to consumers."
• Microsoft contests these allegations, asserting in its Revised Proposed Findings of Fact  that "events of the last 16 months have made it painfully obvious that Microsoft does not possess monopoly power -  the ability to control prices or exclude competitors - in a "market" narrowly defined as operating systems for Intel-compatible personal computers"
• The case does not involve a claim of price fixing to raise prices, instead the court's "findings of fact" state that the "the debut of Internet Explorer and its rapid improvement gave Netscape an incentive to improve Navigator's quality at a competitive rate. The inclusion  of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate  charge increased general familiarity with the Internet  and reduced the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its  availability, thereby benefitting consumers."  Despite the fact that consumers have benefitted from what has been, in effect, a price war between Microsoft and Netscape, the court argues that Microsoft's actions have been harmful because "the ultimate result is that some  innovations that would truly benefit consumers never  occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."
• The outcome of the trial in Judge Penfield Thomas' court has revolved largely around his perception of Bill Gates' attitude, his refusal to admit wrongdoing and insistence on fighting the allegations.  This is his rationale for accepting the government's demand to split up the company instead of just imposing limitations on its conduct.
• There is great division of opinion on the issue, as one can see in published commentary, a few examples of which I have linked here: Arizona Republic,  Newsweek. Indianapolis Star.   The Economist. Philadelphia Inquirer.  Paul Krugman in NY Times.  Washington Post.  This largely follows an ideological line - pro business and free markets vs. pro government and regulation.
• The main beneficiaries of this lawsuit have been Microsoft's competitors, especially Sun and Netscape/AOL, not the general public, which generally is sympathetic to Microsoft.  Microsoft has belatedly begun a Public Relations and Lobbying Campaign to fight politically.

They may do better on appeal than they did in Judge Penfield Jackson's court.  They might also fare much better under a Republican administration
• My conclusions:  it my view it is true that Microsoft has been arrogant, and has used its monopoly position with the Windows operating system to strong-arm customers and especially to fight the Browser war with Netscape.  Microsoft's strength has not been its "great software" as it claims, but its superior business strategies and its attention to the needs for compatibility of software.  Windows was successful because it was backward compatible with DOS software and it was cheaper than Apple's operating system which was technically superior.   On the fundamental technical issue, Microsoft is right that the Internet should be integrated into the operating system.  Microsoft has played a necessary role in integrating and coordinating the system - the need for a degree of hierarchal control.  This is the "network effect" the government's findings of fact talked about, and it is an inherent need of the system.  The lawsuit has been motivated largely by envy and resentment and the desire to punish success, and may be harmful to the US economy.  I do not believe that Microsoft should be forcibly split into two companies - it should pay some kind of financial penalty (less than Gates is giving away anyhow) and be forced to follow some regulations giving Netscape and others better the ability to place their software on the desktops of new computers.  I think this will be the likely outcome on appeal.
• The latest information on the case can be found on the Microsoft Lawsuit page.