Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by r5boston
Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."
That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
No. Guess you can't read either.
I think you're missing the point again as you did with warranties. You get a fact right (BIOS is software), but miss the larger picture. IBM had a lock on the hardware because of the BIOS. No matter how off-the-shelf the parts were, or how the BIOS was stored, they were useless as a PC without that BIOS.
"(Harry) MacDougald is better known to Web aficionados as "Buckhead," the conservative blogger who first noticed that Rather used forged documents in a Sept. 8 "60 Minutes" story that questioned President Bush's Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War.
"For conservatives, he's been a black beast," MacDougald said Wednesday as a coat-and-tie crowd circulated around a GOP hero. "In conservative circles, Dan Rather has been viewed as an enemy."
Which is why on the night of Sept. 8 — at 11:59:43 — MacDougald clicked the submit button on the iMac in his bedroom and posted a message questioning the documents Rather used, ostensibly from the 1970s."
(FR) Blogger sheds no tears for Rather - AJC (3/10/2005)
===
We all have to thank Steve Jobs for inventing the iMac and Al Gore for inventing the Internet that made yesterday's Dan Rather news possible.
Bill Clinton impeached - via Mac.
Clinton Library Pardons exposed - via Mac.
President Bush's election strategy developed - via Mac.
The list of miseries we've inflicted on the Democrats by using Macs is endless. It is the superior weapon.
This may be the best post of the day - on this or any other topic! In fact, it may just be the secret of life!
Thank you. And great tagline, by the way.
>> What did the task bar do that wasn't already done on the Apple Mac menu bar?<<
You're joking, right?
>>Show running apps? Covered.<<
Huh? Without moving your mouse?
Try using Alt-TAB in Mac 7 and see what happens. That was available in 3.0.
>>others perfer the menu bar<<
I don't buy that. Mac users, if they were honest, would have liked that feature. Still would.
At least be honest. There were a lot of great things about the Mac, and still are. But it doesn't have to be better than Windows in every single instance for you or anyone else to justify using it. In fact, you don't have to justify it.
Mac folks need to get over their inferiority complex with respect to Windows. If Mac is so great, use it. People tend to buy great products. There's no need for Mac folks to constantly post how the Mac is so great and how Windows sucks. They are tools, just like my nutdriver set and my set of ratchets and sockets.
You'd think it would be 'fall-off-a-log' simple, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, it's not.
My campaigning for Macs centers around only one thing... the number of windows novices in my family that refuse to get a Mac, BUT CONSTANTLY HOUND ME TO HELP WITH THEIR WINDOWS PROBLEMS!
So many FReepers are so good with computers they could surf the net with a toaster, if they had to. I'm not one of them. Nevertheless, it seems like every little old lady within bingo range thinks I'm suppose to be their IT department because I never have problems with my Mac I can't fix on my own.
In short, I wouldn't have any grievance with windows if they wouldn't keep selling it to people that haven't a clue on using it.
Best of all, it's the ultimate piece of technological and political ju jitsu by using the tool of the enemy against itself.
"It still is, until Linux gets its drivers in order. I know its mainly the fault of the device manufacturers, but it's still a fact no matter what the reason is."
True, but that is a solvable problem, as are te other Linux shortcomings. Even now, I throw in a knoppix disk and it boots up fine with network and video card.
I'm just saying Linux is already "good enough" for guys like you or me or Bush2000 for many applications. I just don't think I want to bet against Linux long term, and I'm swapping myself over with a two year horizon. That swap isn't going to be for everyone, but for me and a lot of other people the water is fine.
I believe BIOS is not technically hardware or software, but rather 'firmware.'
In most respects, it is more like software than hardware.
Most of the constant posts about how bad Windows sucks come from Windows users. Think of all of the bandwidth that's been wasted on posts about viruses, worms, spyware and other Windows-related problems. Obviously, those folks need a solution to their problems, and we're just trying to help.
We'll quit posting about Macs when Windows users quit posting complaints about their problems.
It doesn't recognize my wireless, so I only have it on a wired machine. I want to get work done, not fiddle with drivers all day long. I spent enough time fiddling with Windows 3.1 and DOS just to get things to work, and I'm not about to go back to that unless I absolutely have to.
Yes, drivers are a work in progress, but I don't think it'll be ready for the consumer market for several years. I doubt I'll be able to install Linux in 2007, and have 99% of the installs go without any driver hassles.
Hear, hear! I just did a wipe/reinstall of xp on my mother-in-law's gateway. She wanted to know what happened to "Word," because she could clearly see the word documents on her backup file. SHE HAS BEEN USING COMPUTERS LONGER THAN I HAVE!
Needless to say, she won't even consider a Mac. She "doesn't like them."
Go figure.
No, the typewriter division had nothing to do with it. Don got his budget from headquarters in NY.
And the computer division didn't care about it. They, like most at HQ, never thought there would be a market for such a machine. A few years before, IBM had developed a desktop computer for scientists, and only sold a few.
Shortly after the pc was announced, a lot of Sr. Mgmnt. got their knickers in a twist, because they all realized that they had seriously misjudged the market.
And it didn't help that Don was a "Lone Ranger" type in a company that was "molded suits".
Did you read what you just wrote? You are claiming IBM had a lock on the HARDWARE because of the SOFTWARE. IBM did not have a lock on the hardware and they did that BY DESIGN. IBM wanted lots of people to create hardware add-ons for their computer so the hardware architecture of the IBM PC is an open standard just like the Apple II. IBM thought they could avoid clones by making the bios proprietary (just like the Apple II and they had Apple vs. Franklin to back up this belief).
The problem here is you are trying to change the subject. You claimed IBM tried to have a stranglehold on the HARWARE but Compaq reverse-engineered it. You are wrong. Compaq did not reverse-engineered ANY hardware. None. Compaq reverse-engineered the bios which is software. IBM never tried to have a stranglehold on the hardware but they did make proprietary software - the bios. HINT: the computer itself is not the only piece of hardware in a computer system. Contrast this with Mac. Apple had a stranglehold on the hardware for many many years. They would not release the architecture therefore nobody except Apple could make parts for the Mac. They later abandoned this strategy after they lost most of their market share
No matter how off-the-shelf the parts were, or how the BIOS was stored, they were useless as a PC without that BIOS.
You are merely saying a computer is useless without software . No kidding. You have missed the point again. Peripherals are hardware and IBM wanted everybody to make peripherals. I BM did not what people to make copies of the entire computer but they did not do this by making the hardware proprietary - they did it by making bios (software) proprietary. Apple made the Mac hardware proprietary - thus the one-company, one-computer, one-fuhrer model
Bottom line (and the only point I was trying to make). The following statement from you is incorrect:
Somebody: No wonder. IBM didn't hold a stranglehold on the hardware.
antiRepublicrat: Actually, IBM tried that, but Compaq reverse-engineered it.
As I pointed out - you are wrong. Compaq did not reverse-engineer any hardware.
No. The bios is software. PERIOD. The bios is a series of commands executed by the computer that control the functioning of the hardware - which is the definition of software.
Firmware refers to the method in which the SOFTWARE is stored. Software on a hard disk or a floppy disk or any writable media can be charged. Firmware refers to software stored in read-only memory (which can not be changed). Any software (not just the bios) can be turned into firmware by burning the software into read-only memory.
Part of the bios can exist in non-read-only memory. When clones first came out - part of the bios (the build-in Basic called ROM-BASIC) was emulated by a standard software file not stored in read-only memory.
Pure unadulterated MacBS
But that is the point - for the majority of the computer world , the computer is a means to an end. A tool as you stated.
For a very small and very odd 2% of computer users, the computer is an end in itself. The logo is all that seems to matter and what they do with the computer is secondary. The computer is a fashion statement - a way to be cool. The liberal elites in Hollywood tell them one type of computer makes you cool or special and they believe it. In the real world, 2% of computer users use Macs. In Hollywood movies, 100% of computer users use Mac. The Mac is the Hollywood computer - more fantasyland than reality.
Like I said, more fantasyland than reality. Dan Rather was exposed because the documents were fake, not because of a Mac. Bill Clinton was impeached by congress, not a mac (what a ludicrous statement). President Bush's election strategy did not come from a Mac - it came from the minds of smart people.
A computer is a means to an end. Like a pencil...but not if you are a MacHead.
Many Mac users are simply not in touch with reality - like I said: MacFantasyland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.