Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Looking Back at MacOS on x86

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the as-science-fiction-as-teleporters-and-tricorders dept.

nutt writes "The MacSpeedZone's Apple Confidential column has a good Article which looks back at what happened to Apple's Star Trek project, (which was to "boldly go where no Mac had gone before." ... Intel hardware.) Its a very good read, and makes one wonder where Star Trek is now? The Article says the NDA's on the engineers was lifted in late 1997. It would be _very_ interesting if something like this could get out to the OSS. Note: Darwin currently compiles on Intel hardware."

2 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Chicken, McFly? by tooth · · Score: 5
    When Bill Gates heard of Apple's plan to put the Mac OS on an Intel machine, he responded by saying it would be "like putting lipstick on a chicken."

    Am I mistaken, or did Bill call Intel Chicken?

    the boy named Griff asked "What's matter, McFly? Chicken?"

  2. MacOS on Intel would have failed by maynard · · Score: 5
    And it's a damn shame, but the article alludes to why in this paragraph:
    Armed with the executive staff's approval, Mark Gonzales, the project marketing manager, made the rounds of PC clone vendors to gauge their interest in bundling Star Trek on their systems. Most were intrigued, but argued that they couldn't afford to pay much for it because their contracts for Windows 3.1 forced them to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every computer shipped, regardless of what operating system it contained. (This anti-competitive practice eventually landed Microsoft in trouble with the Department of Justice.)
    Apple didn't stand a chance on the Intel platform, and they knew it. Yes, it was anticompetetive behavior on Microsoft's part which was responsible. Yes, by all rights Apple should have had an opportunity to compete on a fair playing ground, just like Novell should have had their opportunity. And yes, Microsoft has yet to pay the piper for their past wrongdoing...

    MacOS was clearly superior to Windows 3.x. Hell, MacOS 7 was superior to Windows 95/98 in just about every way imaginable. That it was never ported and sold as a product may be a success and notch in Microsoft's belt, but it's one of the best examples of how Microsoft's (mis)behavior hurt consumers, and in so doing damaged the American economy. When your clueless office-mate asks you "how did Microsoft's practices hurt me?" you can point to the MacOS on Intel that never was and say "here's something you might have wanted that Microsoft made damn certain you couldn't get."

    And that's NOT a level playing field...