With today's very small features and gargantuan SoCs, what's the use of a scope? 99% of the time all you need is a DMM and a logic analyzer, the system can diagnose itself as long as the power is good!
...Sez the guy who's obviously never designed any hardware that operated above 100 kHz.
You do realize, of course, that there are still a LOT of what would typically be called "analog" design considerations even in what you would obviously consider purely "digital" designs; and that the terms "analog" and "digital" become less and less meaningful to the hardware designer (especially once you start laying-out a PCB) as clock frequencies start to go up and up.
Stick to what you know; not to what you think you know.
I am an embedded developer (for both hardware and software) with over 30 years' of employment in the field.
My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software. They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal. It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software.
Exactly this!
I have personally used the MSO series of 'scopes. And I am certain that there wasn't a EULA that I had to click-through when the scope first powered-up. I'm sure there is one along with the Warranty and other info; but, I am pretty certain that, under the "Shrink Wrap" Licensing precedents, I would have not "signed" anything simply by using the 'scope, anymore than I agree to licensing of the applications that are embedded in my TV set, simply by turning it on.
So long as you are not creating a "Derivative Work", nor "Reselling" that firmware, there simply is no Copyright issue here. Tek is DEFINITELY abusing the DMCA here, as well as simply trying to cover-up for a sloppy attempt at what is nothing more than a cost-saving measure.
In fact, they would have had a much more defensible position if they took Hackaday to court for "circumventing security measures of a computing device" (or however that bit is worded in 18 USC...?). But DMCA "Takedown Notices" are hardly EVER challenged, and take only a lawyer-letter with scary language.
Apple subsidizes the OS in the cost of the overpriced PC, so it certainly isn't a free product. Plus, they charge for upgrades further sallowing your argument.
Apple may roll a little of the R&D costs of OS X into their Personal Computers; but at least they:
1. Listen to their Users (at least to a MUCH greater extent than MS).
2. Constantly attempt to actually improve, rather than simply change their OS (and their included apps).
Also, I don't know what rock you've been hiding under; but Apple hasn't charged for OS updates for the past 2 major revisions (Mavericks and the upcoming Yosemite). Yes, my friend; they are FREE (as in Beer).
They also now include the iWork "Productivity Suite" with all new Mac purchases (yes, it's not as full-featured as MS Office or Libre Office; but it is far better than nothing). And IIRC, the iLife components are available for the princely sum of $10 each. So, I'd hardly call them "overly greedy".
apple should charge for OSX on any pc and what will happen if windows 9 flops??
Apple essentially tried that already (clone Licensing).
It almost finished them off before they stopped it.
Apple is a Hardware company. They just offer the software to sell the hardware.
Pretty amazing that the only OS "platform" vendor who is not focused primarily on software also happens to have created the best OS around (for the desktop, at least), isn't it?
Or, more appropriately, "Window" (singular), because it sure discourages the user from working in the multiple-overlapping-windows desktop paradigm that was popularized by the Macintosh back in 1984 (and imitated by every other GUI until Windows 8).
And lest we get off on the "Apple ripped-off Xerox" tangent, one of the things that Andy Hertzfeld improved on in the Lisa/Mac Window Manager (part of his QuickDraw Subsystem) over the Xerox PARC interface was the ability to have multiple OVERLAPPING Windows. So regardless of the rest of it, that is one of the things that Apple did above-and-beyond the work at PARC (which they PURCHASED, BTW)...
I use Visio for chip circuit diagrams. The is no comparable tool.
By "Chip Circuit Diagrams" I assume you mean what is normally called "Schematic Capture", right?
If so, I have always hated the fact that not one CAD/CAE Schematic Capture tool I have personally used has had the "resizing" and other object-editing abilities of even the most ancient of "object-oriented" Drawing apps. Chip symbol from a Library too big for your schematic? In every purpose-specific app I have used, that's just too bad... Many won't even let you rearrange connection nodes to suit your drawing. The list goes on.
I have never seriously looked at using Visio for this (partially since it doesn't have any tie-in to a PCB layout package that I am aware of); but if it allows for reasonable "scaling" of schematic-objects, then I might take another look, thanks for the tip!
Transparencies, in my mind, are more closely associated with skeumorphic design than flat design and their use in the Yosemite beta is a step backward.
Good thing Apple has give you two places to reduce, or completely eliminate, Transparency in Yosemite.
If 10.3 (or was it 10.4) was not so buggy I would even consider to buy an old PowerPC and run that.
iOS 7 is such a pain, I did not even repair my broken screen on my iPad. My next tablet is an e-ink Linux/Android, either a Kobo or a Nook.
Good bye Apple, I was 'trustfull' customer of you the last 30 years and bought hardware worth 50,000 Euro over that time... but thats it.
Liar.
If you have actually spent 50k Euros on Mac hardware over the last 30 years, you would almost certainly still HAVE a PPC-based Mac that still worked just lying around. You wouldn't have to buy one.
And if you spent that amount on Mac H/W, you would have known about 10.5 (Leopard) (the last PPC-based OS X), which wasn't particularly buggy (certainly not nearly so much as Lion (10.7)). And 10.4 (Tiger) was actually a pretty nice OS; so, what "bugs" was it that you found so offensive?
Good luck with those Linux tablets. Enjoy you OS-that-never-gets-updated, laggy UI, and malware/spyware galore.
I can fix any current Mac OS. Just go into the apps folder (flower-shift-a is the shortcut), then into utilities, then run shell application. Enlarge the window to full screen. Bingo, you're in a bash shell where you can talk to a proper unixy command line interface.
First off, it's "COMMAND", not "FLOWER", FFS. Name hasn't changed since Mac OS 1.0 in 1984.
Second, it's the "Terminal" app, not the "Shell Application".
Third, let's see you drive Photoshop from that "Proper Unixy[sic] command line interface".
I for one am glad they are continuing their rampant overreach.
The more they delve into the land of ridiculousness, like the McCarthy era "Un-American Activities" Lists, the quicker we will have those Congressional Hearings where it all blows up in their faces.
This old-time Mac user who was forced to do tech support for Microsoft Word 6.0 for Mac (blech!) in college doesn't know whether to laugh or cry over your innocence. Don't worry, kid, you'll have your own set of trauma to deal with as you grow older.
More recently, though, you may remember that Microsoft conveniently forgot to implement VBA in Office 2008 for Mac, rendering it nearly useless for enterprise applications. So much for "on-parity."
I wondered of someone would remember Word 6.0...;-).
That was actually MS' only attempt to actually "Port" MS Word from Windows to Mac. And yes, it sucked. Badly. That is why, At all other times before or since, all the Office Apps are actually a completely separate codebase from the Windows versions. This is why there are minor differences, such as the lack of forcing ONLY the "Ribbon" UI (which is a Good Thing, IMO), and the VBA debacle you speak of.
.
Speaking of VBA, do you know that what became "Visual BASIC" actually started out FIRST as "Microsoft BASIC for Macintosh". Then one day, rather than make the changes necessary to make it work under System 7, MS abruptly killed it off.
.
Then about a year later, "Visual BASIC" for Windows appeared, looking almost EXACTLY like their Mac BASIC. Bit sadly, they never brought it back to the Mac. And because of this, Mac Office has had a sordid history when it comes to VBA support., you are correct.
.
However, for the 99.5% of MS office users who never touch VBA, it matters not a whit. And for those who do need Macro capability, the Mac Business Unit has tried to provide same, even going so far as licensing and embedding a version of third-party "Real BASIC" at one point.
The Switcher: The Switcher was really only released as a "toy", and was fairly irrelevant after about 1987, when Macs could have more than 256K (yes, that's KILObytes) of RAM, and since System 7 supported Virtual Memory, it was REALLY irrelevant then. Heck, I wrote a floppy-based "Switcher" for my Apple ][. Took about 4 seconds to swap-out 48K of RAM (pretty much every single byte of it!). Was cool to be able to run Magic Window (for documentation) and your Software Development "IDE" (in my case, usually my specially-modified version of the TED][ Editor/Assembler) and be able to flip back and forth.
As far as "stability" goes, I never had that much problem with MacOS, as long as I stayed out of Aldus Freehand or Photoshop. Those apps were pretty much guaranteed to elicit at least one "bomb" per hour...;-) Windows, on the other hand...
The tradeoff is that is it a government and corporate portal into your home and life.
In the meantime, USB was everywhere on PCs. It just wasn't forced down everyone's throats.
USB CONNECTORS were everywhere on PC MOTHERBOARDS and even though the Windows OS theoretically had USB support since Windows 95 R2 ("OSR2") Service Release 2.1 came out in 8/96, virtually NOTHING was available to use it, and when someone named Bill Gates stood up at COMDEX in 1998 and tried to actually USE the USB support in Windows 98... well, we all know how THAT turned out...
While it is true that Apple didn't "invent" USB (that prize goes mostly to Intel, which is why the CONNECTORS appeared on Wintel mobos for nearly FOUR years before Windows users could actually do anything with them), but the instantaneous and huge popularity of the iMac certainly catapulted USB into the mainstream in a helluva hurry!
When Macs didnt just needed a restart every 24 hours (like windows did) but would outright ruin there system install every other week?
You MUST be confusing MacOS and Windows.
I have been using Macs since they were called Lisas (yeah, yeah, I know. Different OS (sort of)), and using Windows since at least version 3.1, and in all those years, I have only had to resort to an OS Reinstall ONCE on a Mac (68k or PPC). I cannot even begin to count the times I had to do a reinstall on Windows. That stuff didn't even BEGIN to abate until Windows 2000.
As far as having to restart, both OSes had their fair share of memory leaks. But when it comes to "outright ruin there[sic] system install[ation]", there is simply no comparison.
I have booted exactly one machine in my life - a small tower RS/6000 running AIX - that came up and proclaimed itself to be a CHRP machine.
I can't remember where I first saw the reference; but I'm pretty sure the PowerMac 6100 series was a CHRP design, and it was pretty popular at the time.
Windows didn't even have a Hierarchical filing structure at the GUI level until W 95.
And let's talk about FAT vs. HFS...
Plus, no Multi-Monitor support, Y2K issues, peripheral driver nightmares, severe memory limitations, complicated application installs... the list goes on and on...
MacOS definitely had its flaws, but as user of both since version 1.0 of both, I will take a Macintosh CS (current in 1991) running MacOS 6.8 or 7.0 ANYTIME over a Windows 3.11 386 machine.
I know my Username will get me unnecessarily bashed and down-modded for this; but can anyone disagree on a FACTUAL basis?
"Wintel" wasn't even a thing in 1991. Windows was still a graphical DOS shell that couldn't compete with the earliest versions of the Macintosh system.
And, with Windows 8, that is true even more once again...
Too bad the PowerPC machines *couldn't run the damn games* or the requisite MS Office suites for students and business people to use them.
Your comment about "games" was a matter of most developers not caring enough to write for a platform with only about 2% marketshare (one of the reasons there aren't more Linux games right now).
However, your comment regarding MS Office is completely off-base.
Other than Access (which MS refused to port to MacOS) and (much more importantly!) MS Outlook and Exchange Server (which MS refused to port to MacOS), Macs have always been "on-Parity" (or even ahead-of) Windows systems as regards to MS Office capability.
You do know that both MS Word and MS Excel were Mac-ONLY at first (MS Word existed, but didn't have a GUI for at least 2 years after it was available on MacOS). I don't know about PowerPoint, but that might have been Mac-Only too for awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
With today's very small features and gargantuan SoCs, what's the use of a scope? 99% of the time all you need is a DMM and a logic analyzer, the system can diagnose itself as long as the power is good!
...Sez the guy who's obviously never designed any hardware that operated above 100 kHz.
You do realize, of course, that there are still a LOT of what would typically be called "analog" design considerations even in what you would obviously consider purely "digital" designs; and that the terms "analog" and "digital" become less and less meaningful to the hardware designer (especially once you start laying-out a PCB) as clock frequencies start to go up and up.
Stick to what you know; not to what you think you know.
I am an embedded developer (for both hardware and software) with over 30 years' of employment in the field.
How about you?
My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software. They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal. It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software.
Exactly this!
I have personally used the MSO series of 'scopes. And I am certain that there wasn't a EULA that I had to click-through when the scope first powered-up. I'm sure there is one along with the Warranty and other info; but, I am pretty certain that, under the "Shrink Wrap" Licensing precedents, I would have not "signed" anything simply by using the 'scope, anymore than I agree to licensing of the applications that are embedded in my TV set, simply by turning it on.
So long as you are not creating a "Derivative Work", nor "Reselling" that firmware, there simply is no Copyright issue here. Tek is DEFINITELY abusing the DMCA here, as well as simply trying to cover-up for a sloppy attempt at what is nothing more than a cost-saving measure.
In fact, they would have had a much more defensible position if they took Hackaday to court for "circumventing security measures of a computing device" (or however that bit is worded in 18 USC...?). But DMCA "Takedown Notices" are hardly EVER challenged, and take only a lawyer-letter with scary language.
Apple subsidizes the OS in the cost of the overpriced PC, so it certainly isn't a free product. Plus, they charge for upgrades further sallowing your argument.
Apple may roll a little of the R&D costs of OS X into their Personal Computers; but at least they:
1. Listen to their Users (at least to a MUCH greater extent than MS).
2. Constantly attempt to actually improve, rather than simply change their OS (and their included apps).
Also, I don't know what rock you've been hiding under; but Apple hasn't charged for OS updates for the past 2 major revisions (Mavericks and the upcoming Yosemite). Yes, my friend; they are FREE (as in Beer).
They also now include the iWork "Productivity Suite" with all new Mac purchases (yes, it's not as full-featured as MS Office or Libre Office; but it is far better than nothing). And IIRC, the iLife components are available for the princely sum of $10 each. So, I'd hardly call them "overly greedy".
So now what?
apple should charge for OSX on any pc and what will happen if windows 9 flops??
Apple essentially tried that already (clone Licensing).
It almost finished them off before they stopped it.
Apple is a Hardware company. They just offer the software to sell the hardware.
Pretty amazing that the only OS "platform" vendor who is not focused primarily on software also happens to have created the best OS around (for the desktop, at least), isn't it?
Windows? It should be called "tiles" now
Or, more appropriately, "Window" (singular), because it sure discourages the user from working in the multiple-overlapping-windows desktop paradigm that was popularized by the Macintosh back in 1984 (and imitated by every other GUI until Windows 8).
And lest we get off on the "Apple ripped-off Xerox" tangent, one of the things that Andy Hertzfeld improved on in the Lisa/Mac Window Manager (part of his QuickDraw Subsystem) over the Xerox PARC interface was the ability to have multiple OVERLAPPING Windows. So regardless of the rest of it, that is one of the things that Apple did above-and-beyond the work at PARC (which they PURCHASED, BTW)...
I use Visio for chip circuit diagrams. The is no comparable tool.
By "Chip Circuit Diagrams" I assume you mean what is normally called "Schematic Capture", right?
If so, I have always hated the fact that not one CAD/CAE Schematic Capture tool I have personally used has had the "resizing" and other object-editing abilities of even the most ancient of "object-oriented" Drawing apps. Chip symbol from a Library too big for your schematic? In every purpose-specific app I have used, that's just too bad... Many won't even let you rearrange connection nodes to suit your drawing. The list goes on.
I have never seriously looked at using Visio for this (partially since it doesn't have any tie-in to a PCB layout package that I am aware of); but if it allows for reasonable "scaling" of schematic-objects, then I might take another look, thanks for the tip!
I don't know why my Reply got eaten by slashdot's horrible commenting system, but you can d/l old versions of iOS from here:
http://techarrival.com/downloa...
here.
Considering iOS7 is about to be replaced any day now.
In Other News, Exploit gives unlimited Lives in Doom.
Third, let's see you drive Photoshop from that "Proper Unixy[sic] command line interface".
Macintosh:~ user$ open -a Photoshop
Ok, that launches it, but now do an irregular selection area, and apply the smudge tool with that CLI.
But bravo. You have successfully drawn me into your pointless attempt at proving me wrong.
Transparencies, in my mind, are more closely associated with skeumorphic design than flat design and their use in the Yosemite beta is a step backward.
Good thing Apple has give you two places to reduce, or completely eliminate, Transparency in Yosemite.
Read the Ars article for details.
If 10.3 (or was it 10.4) was not so buggy I would even consider to buy an old PowerPC and run that. iOS 7 is such a pain, I did not even repair my broken screen on my iPad. My next tablet is an e-ink Linux/Android, either a Kobo or a Nook. Good bye Apple, I was 'trustfull' customer of you the last 30 years and bought hardware worth 50,000 Euro over that time ... but thats it.
Liar.
If you have actually spent 50k Euros on Mac hardware over the last 30 years, you would almost certainly still HAVE a PPC-based Mac that still worked just lying around. You wouldn't have to buy one.
And if you spent that amount on Mac H/W, you would have known about 10.5 (Leopard) (the last PPC-based OS X), which wasn't particularly buggy (certainly not nearly so much as Lion (10.7)). And 10.4 (Tiger) was actually a pretty nice OS; so, what "bugs" was it that you found so offensive?
Good luck with those Linux tablets. Enjoy you OS-that-never-gets-updated, laggy UI, and malware/spyware galore.
You'll be back.
I can fix any current Mac OS. Just go into the apps folder (flower-shift-a is the shortcut), then into utilities, then run shell application. Enlarge the window to full screen. Bingo, you're in a bash shell where you can talk to a proper unixy command line interface.
First off, it's "COMMAND", not "FLOWER", FFS. Name hasn't changed since Mac OS 1.0 in 1984.
Second, it's the "Terminal" app, not the "Shell Application".
Third, let's see you drive Photoshop from that "Proper Unixy[sic] command line interface".
What a 'tard.
I for one am glad they are continuing their rampant overreach.
The more they delve into the land of ridiculousness, like the McCarthy era "Un-American Activities" Lists, the quicker we will have those Congressional Hearings where it all blows up in their faces.
At least I hope history repeats itself...
This old-time Mac user who was forced to do tech support for Microsoft Word 6.0 for Mac (blech!) in college doesn't know whether to laugh or cry over your innocence. Don't worry, kid, you'll have your own set of trauma to deal with as you grow older. More recently, though, you may remember that Microsoft conveniently forgot to implement VBA in Office 2008 for Mac, rendering it nearly useless for enterprise applications. So much for "on-parity."
I wondered of someone would remember Word 6.0... ;-).
That was actually MS' only attempt to actually "Port" MS Word from Windows to Mac. And yes, it sucked. Badly. That is why, At all other times before or since, all the Office Apps are actually a completely separate codebase from the Windows versions. This is why there are minor differences, such as the lack of forcing ONLY the "Ribbon" UI (which is a Good Thing, IMO), and the VBA debacle you speak of.
. Speaking of VBA, do you know that what became "Visual BASIC" actually started out FIRST as "Microsoft BASIC for Macintosh". Then one day, rather than make the changes necessary to make it work under System 7, MS abruptly killed it off.
. Then about a year later, "Visual BASIC" for Windows appeared, looking almost EXACTLY like their Mac BASIC. Bit sadly, they never brought it back to the Mac. And because of this, Mac Office has had a sordid history when it comes to VBA support., you are correct.
. However, for the 99.5% of MS office users who never touch VBA, it matters not a whit. And for those who do need Macro capability, the Mac Business Unit has tried to provide same, even going so far as licensing and embedding a version of third-party "Real BASIC" at one point.
. And BTW, I am 58 years old.
No memory protection. No virtual memory. The switcher. Sad Mac Icon. Things were not perfect.
No memory Protection: Neither did Windows.
;-) Windows, on the other hand...
No virtual memory. Actually, starting with System 7.0, which was released in May, 1991, MacOS had a virtual memory system. And unlike Windows' version, the Mac version almost never made you feel like you were trapped in Swap-File Hell....
The Switcher: The Switcher was really only released as a "toy", and was fairly irrelevant after about 1987, when Macs could have more than 256K (yes, that's KILObytes) of RAM, and since System 7 supported Virtual Memory, it was REALLY irrelevant then. Heck, I wrote a floppy-based "Switcher" for my Apple ][. Took about 4 seconds to swap-out 48K of RAM (pretty much every single byte of it!). Was cool to be able to run Magic Window (for documentation) and your Software Development "IDE" (in my case, usually my specially-modified version of the TED][ Editor/Assembler) and be able to flip back and forth.
As far as "stability" goes, I never had that much problem with MacOS, as long as I stayed out of Aldus Freehand or Photoshop. Those apps were pretty much guaranteed to elicit at least one "bomb" per hour...
The tradeoff is that is it a government and corporate portal into your home and life.
Citation, please.
along with peripherals for their 'proprietary' (Nu)bus)
NuBus was not a "proprietary" Apple bus.
NuBus was supposed to be "the next big thing", and was actually created by MIT, and was used by Apple and Texas Instruments, among a few others.
According to this article, it is still being used in some high-end embedded applications.
It just lost out to PCI bus, mostly because of connector-cost and cost of the host interface.
In the meantime, USB was everywhere on PCs. It just wasn't forced down everyone's throats.
USB CONNECTORS were everywhere on PC MOTHERBOARDS and even though the Windows OS theoretically had USB support since Windows 95 R2 ("OSR2") Service Release 2.1 came out in 8/96, virtually NOTHING was available to use it, and when someone named Bill Gates stood up at COMDEX in 1998 and tried to actually USE the USB support in Windows 98... well, we all know how THAT turned out...
While it is true that Apple didn't "invent" USB (that prize goes mostly to Intel, which is why the CONNECTORS appeared on Wintel mobos for nearly FOUR years before Windows users could actually do anything with them), but the instantaneous and huge popularity of the iMac certainly catapulted USB into the mainstream in a helluva hurry!
When Macs didnt just needed a restart every 24 hours (like windows did) but would outright ruin there system install every other week?
You MUST be confusing MacOS and Windows.
I have been using Macs since they were called Lisas (yeah, yeah, I know. Different OS (sort of)), and using Windows since at least version 3.1, and in all those years, I have only had to resort to an OS Reinstall ONCE on a Mac (68k or PPC). I cannot even begin to count the times I had to do a reinstall on Windows. That stuff didn't even BEGIN to abate until Windows 2000.
As far as having to restart, both OSes had their fair share of memory leaks. But when it comes to "outright ruin there[sic] system install[ation]", there is simply no comparison.
I have booted exactly one machine in my life - a small tower RS/6000 running AIX - that came up and proclaimed itself to be a CHRP machine.
I can't remember where I first saw the reference; but I'm pretty sure the PowerMac 6100 series was a CHRP design, and it was pretty popular at the time.
I was always surprised that software emulation of x86 was not significantly attempted on the other RISC platforms given the success shown by Apple.
Actually, I believe that was thanks to Apple's bitchin' JiT Cross-Compiler, not actual "emulation".
If you want to see i86 Emulation on the PPC, look at something like Connectix' VirtualPC (part of which lives on in Windows as Hyper-V).
Let me tell you, the performance was not wonderful in that product...
Correct. I still have the Beta and Release CDs.
Those SHOULD be able to run on a PowerMac 6100; because it is a "pure" CHIRP Reference Platform.
That would be interesting to see.
DId they port the GUI, too?
Also, MacOS was horrible in 1991.
Horrible in what way?
Windows didn't even have a Hierarchical filing structure at the GUI level until W 95.
And let's talk about FAT vs. HFS...
Plus, no Multi-Monitor support, Y2K issues, peripheral driver nightmares, severe memory limitations, complicated application installs... the list goes on and on...
MacOS definitely had its flaws, but as user of both since version 1.0 of both, I will take a Macintosh CS (current in 1991) running MacOS 6.8 or 7.0 ANYTIME over a Windows 3.11 386 machine.
I know my Username will get me unnecessarily bashed and down-modded for this; but can anyone disagree on a FACTUAL basis?
"Wintel" wasn't even a thing in 1991. Windows was still a graphical DOS shell that couldn't compete with the earliest versions of the Macintosh system.
And, with Windows 8, that is true even more once again...
Too bad the PowerPC machines *couldn't run the damn games* or the requisite MS Office suites for students and business people to use them.
Your comment about "games" was a matter of most developers not caring enough to write for a platform with only about 2% marketshare (one of the reasons there aren't more Linux games right now).
However, your comment regarding MS Office is completely off-base.
Other than Access (which MS refused to port to MacOS) and (much more importantly!) MS Outlook and Exchange Server (which MS refused to port to MacOS), Macs have always been "on-Parity" (or even ahead-of) Windows systems as regards to MS Office capability.
You do know that both MS Word and MS Excel were Mac-ONLY at first (MS Word existed, but didn't have a GUI for at least 2 years after it was available on MacOS). I don't know about PowerPoint, but that might have been Mac-Only too for awhile.