Replies

Gates and IBM signed a non-exclusive agreement. IBM attorneys knew that the agreement was non-exclusive and, regardless of your protestations to the contrary, IBM doesn't employ dumb attorneys.

They saved money by signing a non-exclusive agreement in a marketplace where they believed there would be no competition (and thus a need for an exclusive agreement).

There's no need for emulation.

You're not getting the point. Instead of wrappers and a very outdated API and general OS structure (can you say registry?), they could have done it new, more modern. In such a case, they could have used behind-the-scenes emulation for legacy applications.

The reason that Apple has had to require emulation is that it has changed processors several times.

The Mac has changed processors to the point of there being any compability problems only once, from 68K to PPC. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about changing the OS to something more modern while still allowing for legacy applications. With VirtualPC, I'm sure Microsoft could pull it off even better than Apple did, but they're not interested in quality, only marketshare.

Too bad there's a veiled caveat attached to your declaration.

Not veiled at all. It's a good OS, the best Microsoft has ever produced, but it's not as good as the competition.

Like I said, wake me up when you get to 5%.

At the latest, probably early next year, especially with the huge initial MacTel sales they will have -- and this time Apple won't be limited in how many they can sell due to lack of CPU availability.

At the latest, probably early next year, especially with the huge initial MacTel sales they will have -- and this time Apple won't be limited in how many they can sell due to lack of CPU availability.

Hmmm.....I thought he said "Like I said, wake me up when you get to 5%.".

But you must have read "let me know when you THINK they'll get to 5%".

Having said that, if/when they hit 5% does that mean Windows is no longer a monopoly? If not, at what % is required?

But then again what does any of this have to do with Firefox's 'retreat' ensures Microsoft excels
Open source web browser Firefox has lost the momentum it has steadily gained since it was unleashed last year, according to Web analysts at Net Applications.
The online portal’s unique Hit List service reveals a slump in the Mozilla browser’s market share, falling from 8.7% to 8.1 % in July.

Coinciding with its demise, was the advance of Microsoft's IE that has gained some of the ground surrendered in June, climbing back from 86.6 % to 87.2% last month.

They saved money by signing a non-exclusive agreement in a marketplace where they believed there would be no competition (and thus a need for an exclusive agreement).

That wasn't luck. That was stupidity. Gates clearly understood that he wanted a non-exclusive agreement.

Instead of wrappers and a very outdated API and general OS structure (can you say registry?), they could have done it new, more modern.

Oh, I certainly get your point. I'm questioning the benefit. There's a significant tradeoff with emulation: Performance. Some applications may benefit from emulation but far more don't benefit. And, in a market in which performance is closely measured against past versions, MS has to be careful about deploying emulation. Apple didn't have a choice. It had to use emulation. It also knew that, despite anything that it does, Apple's users would slavishly suck down Stevie's Kool-Aid and upgrade.

The Mac has changed processors to the point of there being any compability problems only once, from 68K to PPC. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about changing the OS to something more modern while still allowing for legacy applications.

There is no reason to derail Vista because of what you consider to be architectural purity. The benefit does not outweigh the cost.

The Mac has changed processors to the point of there being any compability problems only once, from 68K to PPC.

Yeah, but it's more than that. Mac moved from MacOS9 to OS X, which was a complete architectural shift to the ripped-off-from-BSD kernel. The apps were completely incompatible with the new operating system; so, in fact, Apple had no choice but to use emulation for legacy apps.

Not veiled at all. It's a good OS, the best Microsoft has ever produced, but it's not as good as the competition.

Define "competition".

At the latest, probably early next year, especially with the huge initial MacTel sales they will have -- and this time Apple won't be limited in how many they can sell due to lack of CPU availability.

My best wishes go out to Apple, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. The processor choice has little to do with why people buy Macs. Performance isn't really a factor, either, because perf isn't so disparate between PCs and Macs. No, people buy Macs primarily because of an aesthetic and one-size-fits-all mentality that isn't present in the PC market. Even when Apple migrates to the PC, it won't allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple PCs. That means a continuation of the same trend that Apple started with 68K -> PPC -> PC. Meaning, the only thing that Apple really gains is performance parity; which isn't enough to drive their sales.