Originally published July 15th, 2025

For my blog, dedicated to exposing propaganda and championing truth, Microsoft’s ability to maintain market dominance despite releasing poor-quality software is a prime example of how strategic marketing and ecosystem control obscure technical shortcomings. This article examines how Microsoft’s tactics—rooted in the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE) strategy, market dominance, and perception management—allow flawed Windows releases to persist, while contrasting this with the failure of IBM’s technically superior OS/2 Warp, a victim of Microsoft’s propaganda and market manipulation.

Why Microsoft Gets Away with Releasing Poor-Quality Software

Microsoft’s dominance despite persistent software quality issues stems from a blend of strategic propaganda, market control, and structural advantages that prioritize control over excellence.

A. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE) Strategy

• Embrace: Microsoft adopts industry standards, creating an illusion of compatibility (e.g., supporting HTML or Java).
• Extend: Proprietary features lock users into their ecosystem, like Internet Explorer’s HTML extensions that favored Microsoft platforms.
• Extinguish: Competitors using open standards, like Netscape Navigator, are marginalized as users remain trapped in Microsoft’s ecosystem despite bugs or vulnerabilities.
• Impact on Quality: EEE prioritizes control over quality, enabling Microsoft to release flawed software while users remain locked in, a propaganda tactic that masks technical inferiority with market dominance.

B. Cornering Markets

• Enterprise and OEM Dominance: Microsoft’s OEM agreements ensure Windows is pre-installed on most PCs, limiting exposure to alternatives and reinforcing the narrative that Windows is the only viable option.
• Network Effects: More Windows users attract more developers, sustaining dominance even for flawed releases like Windows Vista or 8.
• Vendor Lock-In: Dependency on Microsoft’s ecosystem (e.g., Office, Active Directory, Azure) forces enterprises to tolerate flaws due to high switching costs.
• Marketing Muscle: Campaigns like “Windows Everywhere” emphasize familiarity and downplay issues, framing patches as proactive solutions, a form of propaganda that normalizes mediocrity.

C. Patch Culture and Perception Management

• Normalized Flaws: Microsoft’s “release now, patch later” approach, via Windows Update and Patch Tuesday, desensitizes users to software issues, portraying bugs as routine.
• Spin Control: Bugs are reframed as “edge cases,” and rapid patching is spun as responsiveness, as seen with Windows 10’s 2018 file deletion bug.
• User Inertia: Non-technical users, unaware of alternatives or fearful of switching, accept “good enough” software, allowing Microsoft to perpetuate a narrative of inevitability.

Windows Releases and Major Flaws

A “major flaw” refers to critical issues like security vulnerabilities, data loss, or instability requiring post-launch patches. Microsoft’s history of flawed releases, coupled with propaganda to mitigate backlash, includes:

• Windows 11 (2021): Performance issues on AMD processors and TPM 2.0 compatibility problems required patches within weeks.
• Windows 10 (2015): Privacy concerns, driver issues, and a 2018 update’s file deletion bug led to a temporary withdrawal.
• Windows 8/8.1 (2012–2013): Metro UI confusion, driver issues, and app ecosystem gaps necessitated patches.
• Windows 7 (2009): Minor driver and BSOD issues were addressed by Service Pack 1, but no immediate critical patch was needed.
• Windows Vista (2007): Performance issues, incompatibilities, and UAC annoyances required multiple patches.
• Windows XP (2001): Security vulnerabilities (e.g., weak firewall) were exploited by worms like Blaster, requiring Service Pack 1.
• Windows 2000 (2000): Stable for enterprises, with minor driver issues but no widespread critical flaws needing immediate patches.

Conclusion: Windows 2000 was likely the last release without a major flaw requiring an immediate patch. Subsequent releases relied on Microsoft’s market dominance and propaganda to mitigate consequences, framing fixes as part of a responsive cycle.

OS/2 Warp: Quality Defeated by Propaganda

OS/2 Warp’s Strengths

• Technical Superiority: OS/2 Warp (1994–1996) offered better stability and multitasking than Windows 3.1 or early Windows 95, supporting 32-bit apps.
• Enterprise Focus: Designed for reliability, it was used in banking and ATMs.
• Compatibility: Ran DOS and Windows 3.x applications, making it a viable alternative.

Why OS/2 Warp Failed

OS/2 Warp’s technical excellence was overshadowed by Microsoft’s propaganda and market control, a cautionary tale for my blog’s mission to expose manipulative narratives:

A. Marketing Missteps

• Poor Consumer Outreach: IBM focused on enterprises, neglecting consumer branding, unlike Windows 95’s flashy, consumer-friendly launch.
• Complex Positioning: Technical messaging failed to appeal to non-technical users, while Microsoft’s propaganda emphasized simplicity and accessibility.
• Limited OEM Deals: Microsoft’s OEM agreements sidelined OS/2, forcing users to buy and install it separately.

B. Microsoft’s EEE in Action

• Embrace: Microsoft collaborated with IBM on OS/2, gaining insight into its strengths.
• Extend: Windows NT and 95 mimicked OS/2’s features but prioritized consumer appeal with proprietary integrations.
• Extinguish: OEM dominance and the Win32 API lured developers, marginalizing OS/2 and reinforcing Microsoft’s narrative of dominance.

C. Developer Ecosystem

Microsoft’s tools, like Visual Studio, made Windows the default platform, while OS/2 lacked software support, a result of Microsoft’s propaganda-driven ecosystem control.

D. Pricing and Accessibility

OS/2 was expensive and less accessible than pre-installed Windows, further hindered by Microsoft’s market manipulation.

Contrast with Microsoft

OS/2 Warp’s superior quality couldn’t overcome Microsoft’s propaganda and market control. Windows 95’s cultural launch, backed by aggressive marketing, overshadowed OS/2 Warp 3’s stability. Microsoft’s patch culture kept users in their ecosystem, while OS/2’s small user base couldn’t tolerate issues, highlighting how propaganda trumps technical merit.

Conclusion

Microsoft’s EEE strategy, market-cornering tactics, and perception management allow them to release flawed software without losing dominance, with Windows 2000 as the last release free of major immediate flaws. OS/2 Warp’s failure illustrates how Microsoft’s propaganda—through OEM dominance, network effects, and marketing spin—defeated a technically superior alternative. My blog stands to expose such tactics, advocating for transparency and user empowerment in a tech landscape shaped by manipulative narratives. For further insights, see the OS/2 NT Shootout detailing the competitive divergence of Microsoft and IBM in the OS marketplace.