Note that is their G4 systems. Not their 60x systems with upgrades to G4 or their PCI systems upgraded to G4 or UMax's systems or the NuBus systems mentioned in the original post. Just Apple brand G4s. (And even then, I'll be surprised if there aren't some interesting exceptions)
The goal of Star Trek was to create two tiers of Mac computers. The premier systems would be Apple hardware and the second tier would run on generic PCs with just the Apple OS. The Apple computers would have the latest driver support and optimization and the generic would be, well, generic.
This would get Apple a chunk of the huge x86 market and still let them keep the fat hardware revenue stream. If Apple just made their own x86 computer that wasn't compatible with all the other IBM PCs, it wouldn't have bought them anything except they'd owe alliegence to Intel rather than Motorola.
Actually 3.x (and 2.x and 1.x) do but only with MS-DOS apps. Win16 apps are cooperatively multitasked. With Win 1.x and 2.x on 808x and 80286 hardware there isn't memory protection but that came with Windows/386 2.10 (around 1988).
Unfortunately, MacOS has this nasty tendency to not run on even all the Mac's available at their launch. Forget running a new MacOS on anything but the latest hardware. That upgraded NuBus Mac won't run OSX nor will those PCI Macs. Nor, for that matter, will the G3s or some of the G4s. Funny thing. You'd think Apple wanted you to buy a new computer...
Actually, there was a guy from Apple claiming that it was unfair Microsoft practices that caused one version of QuickTime/Win not to install correctly. His testimony was fairly amusing when Microsoft showed that Apple's code didn't didn't bother using the well documented (and used by every Windows app out there) for registering handlers for specific file types. Apple fixed the bug in their code and it installed fine after that.
Amazing how history can get twisted in only a couple of years. When Microsoft got Apple to bundle IE, Apple was about to go under. Market share was at 3% and dropping. Almost every Mac software vendor had announced they weren't do a new version for Mac and Apple was laying off most of their staff and replacing CEO's as fast as they could say "golden parachute". On top of this, Apple was releasing a new, incompatible programming model and future OS every six months (Pink, Taligent, Gershwin, Copland, etc.) so nobody was sure what API to write to if their app was to have any kind of lifespan.
Microsoft committing to a new version of Office was the first company announcing any faith in Apple having a future and even then it didn't look like Apple would be around long enough for it to ship. The MS deal was the first step in bringing Apple back from the abyss. You want a villain in all this, look at pre-Jobs Apple management or all the "Mac Loyalist" app vendors that abandoned Apple before Microsoft showed that maybe Apple wouldn't die.
It is interesting to note that the first one to suggest that Apple put Mac on Intel was Bill Gates who offered to help Steve Jobs work with Microsoft's OEMs in order to get the project jump started. This was back in the Windows 1.0 days when getting a stable GUI out for the huge percentage of PCs that were "IBM Compatible" (8088 and 80286 based) was more important than the slim possiblility that Windows would beat out Digital Reaearch's GEM, IBM's TopView and VisiCorp's VisiOn.
Jobs turned him down since it would have hurt Apple hardware sales and Apple was a hardware company.
The original (pre lawsuit) GEM was a very close clone of the Mac UI. However, it didn't support multitasking. It's a shame Gary Kildall folded when Apple sued. The outcome wasn't that clear.
Absolutely wrong. Windows had preemptive multitasking between MS-DOS apps starting in Windows/386 2.10 and also had memory protection between the multiple VMs (Virtual Machines). You could tune the foreground and background priorities and the memory allocation between the separate VMs by tuning their Program Information Files (PIFs). And, no, they didn't run in Ring 0.
With Windows 95, Win16 apps ran in a single VM and were cooperatively multitasked so they'd run in the 3.x WinApp environment (not a bad design in a limited hardware situation - hence both MS and Apple choosing it back then) but Win32 apps each got their own VM and their own memory space. Again, not running in Ring 0.
As for the Program Manager not being a file manager. Right. That's the point. Program Manager was a launcher just like the button in the lower left corner of Windows 9x or most Linux shells. The file manager in Windows 3.x was, surprise, File Manager.
I'll skip commenting on the rest of the post since you don't bother giving any "facts" to refute but just personal preferenced.
Please, if you are going to post guesses, at least try not to pretend to be authoritative.
The real issue is that this "volunteer" effort is not being taxed. It is a barter transaction - trading goods of percieved like value. What AOL is getting out of the deal is ducking out of a fairly huge amount of taxes, SSI and worker's comp payments that they'd have to pay if they admitted that what they are paying has value.
Of course, that assumes that access to AOL has value.
Continuing the posts likely to be moderated down to -1 (If we keep this up, they'll find a way to mod it down to -3), this is, unfortunately, one of the traditional failings of Open Source software. Adding the little nit-picky details to actually finish the software just isn't sexy enough for anybody to actually do it. First off, it isn't impressive to say "I'm the one who added support for Ctrl-DownArrow" and secondly, nobody will hold off a release when its "good enough" to use. After that's done, all the work goes into more big features and the details get left out again.
4.... MS settled the lawsuit with Mac based on... a willingness to make MS Office 98.
Actually, you're mixing two different Apple/Microsoft eras. The Apple lawsuit (which Microsoft won) was over in the early 90s.
6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses....
Actually the.NET stuff has virtually nothing to do with renting software. That, for some reason, is what some reporters thought it was going to be and they didn't understand what.net was really about so they kept on saying it.
Hmmm, porting an existing app to another OS is what passes for innovation? No wonder/.ers keep claiming that the Open Source community is innovative and Microsoft isn't. Aha. This explains much that was unclear!
Let's see, Mac share was at 3% and falling fast. The SJ Mercury (and everybody else) had Apple on a death watch, Apple had just effectively killed their third new OS and Nobody, but NOBODY was developing new Mac apps and most companies were killing their existing ones off to save on support costs. Now, given those times, Microsoft commits to producing NEW versions of the most critical apps in the Mac market.
OK, that's serious fault one of your premise.
Now on to point two. If Microsoft made a deal for Apple to kill off QuickTime in exchange for developing new versions of Office, how come QuickTime is still around? And please don't claim that Microsoft doesn't know how to write a contract - that wouldn't even begin to pass any laughability test.
Where did you come up with this one and does anyone who buys this actually claim they've bother thinking?
Microsoft has had apps for Mac OS longer than any existing company except Apple. Microsoft, pfs and Lotus were the companies that first supported Macintosh and of those, only Microsoft kept producing apps.
For those of you who weren't around, the Microsoft apps were real Macintosh apps as was the eventual Lotus Jazz. The pfs: apps were text based console apps running in a GUI window. Lotus Jazz was an extremely limited all-in-one app that was a dismal failure and didn't end up shipping until a year late by which time Excel shipped.
Why should Windows source code be required to port Office (let alone write it)?
Because Office relies on having a lot of services around that Linux doesn't have. The same reason that WINE doesn't really exist yet. If those services were around in Linux then WINE and Office would both be simple (relatively) porting jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is the textbook definition of a vertical monopoly. (Microsoft is being charged as a horizontal monopoly by comparison)
Note that is their G4 systems. Not their 60x systems with upgrades to G4 or their PCI systems upgraded to G4 or UMax's systems or the NuBus systems mentioned in the original post. Just Apple brand G4s. (And even then, I'll be surprised if there aren't some interesting exceptions)
This would get Apple a chunk of the huge x86 market and still let them keep the fat hardware revenue stream. If Apple just made their own x86 computer that wasn't compatible with all the other IBM PCs, it wouldn't have bought them anything except they'd owe alliegence to Intel rather than Motorola.
Actually 3.x (and 2.x and 1.x) do but only with MS-DOS apps. Win16 apps are cooperatively multitasked. With Win 1.x and 2.x on 808x and 80286 hardware there isn't memory protection but that came with Windows/386 2.10 (around 1988).
Unfortunately, MacOS has this nasty tendency to not run on even all the Mac's available at their launch. Forget running a new MacOS on anything but the latest hardware. That upgraded NuBus Mac won't run OSX nor will those PCI Macs. Nor, for that matter, will the G3s or some of the G4s. Funny thing. You'd think Apple wanted you to buy a new computer...
Actually, there was a guy from Apple claiming that it was unfair Microsoft practices that caused one version of QuickTime/Win not to install correctly. His testimony was fairly amusing when Microsoft showed that Apple's code didn't didn't bother using the well documented (and used by every Windows app out there) for registering handlers for specific file types. Apple fixed the bug in their code and it installed fine after that.
Microsoft committing to a new version of Office was the first company announcing any faith in Apple having a future and even then it didn't look like Apple would be around long enough for it to ship. The MS deal was the first step in bringing Apple back from the abyss. You want a villain in all this, look at pre-Jobs Apple management or all the "Mac Loyalist" app vendors that abandoned Apple before Microsoft showed that maybe Apple wouldn't die.
Jobs turned him down since it would have hurt Apple hardware sales and Apple was a hardware company.
The original (pre lawsuit) GEM was a very close clone of the Mac UI. However, it didn't support multitasking. It's a shame Gary Kildall folded when Apple sued. The outcome wasn't that clear.
With Windows 95, Win16 apps ran in a single VM and were cooperatively multitasked so they'd run in the 3.x WinApp environment (not a bad design in a limited hardware situation - hence both MS and Apple choosing it back then) but Win32 apps each got their own VM and their own memory space. Again, not running in Ring 0.
As for the Program Manager not being a file manager. Right. That's the point. Program Manager was a launcher just like the button in the lower left corner of Windows 9x or most Linux shells. The file manager in Windows 3.x was, surprise, File Manager.
I'll skip commenting on the rest of the post since you don't bother giving any "facts" to refute but just personal preferenced.
Please, if you are going to post guesses, at least try not to pretend to be authoritative.
Of course, that assumes that access to AOL has value.
Windows 2000 was written in Visual C++. Try writing UNIX in PERL.
Makes as much sense.
Actually, Eazel's logo is the oval with eazel in it shown here
Continuing the posts likely to be moderated down to -1 (If we keep this up, they'll find a way to mod it down to -3), this is, unfortunately, one of the traditional failings of Open Source software. Adding the little nit-picky details to actually finish the software just isn't sexy enough for anybody to actually do it. First off, it isn't impressive to say "I'm the one who added support for Ctrl-DownArrow" and secondly, nobody will hold off a release when its "good enough" to use. After that's done, all the work goes into more big features and the details get left out again.
Actually, you're mixing two different Apple/Microsoft eras. The Apple lawsuit (which Microsoft won) was over in the early 90s.
6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses. ...
Actually the .NET stuff has virtually nothing to do with renting software. That, for some reason, is what some reporters thought it was going to be and they didn't understand what .net was really about so they kept on saying it.
Hmmm, porting an existing app to another OS is what passes for innovation? No wonder /.ers keep claiming that the Open Source community is innovative and Microsoft isn't. Aha. This explains much that was unclear!
OK, that's serious fault one of your premise.
Now on to point two. If Microsoft made a deal for Apple to kill off QuickTime in exchange for developing new versions of Office, how come QuickTime is still around? And please don't claim that Microsoft doesn't know how to write a contract - that wouldn't even begin to pass any laughability test.
Where did you come up with this one and does anyone who buys this actually claim they've bother thinking?
For those of you who weren't around, the Microsoft apps were real Macintosh apps as was the eventual Lotus Jazz. The pfs: apps were text based console apps running in a GUI window. Lotus Jazz was an extremely limited all-in-one app that was a dismal failure and didn't end up shipping until a year late by which time Excel shipped.
Because Office relies on having a lot of services around that Linux doesn't have. The same reason that WINE doesn't really exist yet. If those services were around in Linux then WINE and Office would both be simple (relatively) porting jobs.
If it is something I don't work directly with (code it or use the UI): Open Source is about supporting standards!
If it is something I do work directly with (code it or use the UI): Open Source is about personal freedom!