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 ...
Obviously, you don't believe that Buckhead was the first to expose Dan Rather as a liar, you aren't aware that Karl Rove uses Macs, and you're ignorant of FreeRepublic's role in exposing Clinton scandals.
firm·ware 
( P ) Pronunciation Key (f�rm
w�r
)
n.
| Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. |
>> We'll quit posting about Macs when Windows users quit posting complaints about their problems.<<
Out of everything Mac users have said to me over the years, and I've heard some real doosies, this is by far the biggest bunch of hor$e$h!t I think I've ever heard. If you truly believe this, you haven't been reading much of anything written on everything from Mac newsgroups to Mac magazines since 1984.
All Windows users can easily solve this problem very cheaply, it just takes a little education. There are problems that I have with Windows and things I don't like about it, but the Mac platform isn't as problem free as Mac folks like to think. Anyone encouraged to get a Mac should go first over to the Apple site and read the error problems on the forum for the various hardware configurations and software.
Both platforms have issues. The key is to find which one you like and which one will make you the most productive. If that means you buy the "most beautiful" one, then be my guest, but I'm getting the one that will speed my productivity. Right now, that's Intel and Windows on the desktop. Tomorrow? Who knows.
I'm not an Apple basher. I own an iPod. I'm just sick and tired of Mac trolls thinking 1) its all or nothing; 2) highlighting the latest thing Apple is doing and talking that up like its something unprecedented (e.g. "It runs on Unix;" most Mac trolls couldn't spell Unix prior to 2001, and if Apple created an OS based on PC-DOS and sold it, these same trolls would be singing its praises); 3) the Mac is by far the superior platform -- its not, at least not for all applications.
The judge disagreed with you. He dismissed all of their claims except for one that wanted the court to recognize that Xerox owned the rights to the Star techology... unrelated to Macintosh and which Apple did not contest. Xerox received millions of dollars in stock for what Apple used... in advance.
. . . It was only when they brought him to see the work being done at Xerox PARC on the Alto in December 1979 that Jobs decided the future was in such graphics-intensive, icon-friendly computers, and supported the competing Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh teams. Over the objections of some PARC researchers, many of whom (such as Larry Tesler) ended up working at Apple, Xerox granted Apple engineers 3 days of access to the PARC facilities in return for selling them one million dollars in pre-IPO Apple stock (approximately $18mil. net). The Lisa debuted in January 1983 at $10,000. Once again, Apple had introduced a product that was ahead of its time, but far too expensive (the company would continue to follow this pattern for the next few years), and Apple again failed to capture the business market. The Lisa was discontinued in 1986.
- Wikepedia entry for Apple Computer.
Try doing a Google search for Xerox, Apple, and lawsuit... and see how hard it is to find anything at all on the subject. Most of the commentary is related to the Apple v. Microsoft suit and the effect of the Xerox v. Apple suit and ignores the fact that the judge disagreed and tossed the Xerox case.
I will agree they did not "license" the GUI... but they paid for the ideas they got and Xerox did well on the pre-IPO stock they got.
Nice try yourself... David K. Every has published articles in MacWorld, ZDnet, CNN, UnixReview, Macobserver, privacy digest, and a host of other tech sites and journals. That makes him non-self-appointed. Is he a Mac advocate? Yup...
As to the article, it summarizes what I knew from observing the events as a non-Mac user at the time... and he cites sources who WERE THERE... both at PARC and later at Apple.
The facts are pretty much as he presents them...
I often drive by that Boca campus. Very shoddy looking theses days. Plant? I don't know if that was ever in Boca but the R&D sure was.
And you swore you would not let Linux in any of them, now youre an admin?
More insults. I can read quite well... perhaps your writing is unclear? You said:
Sorry. I have owned a Mac (I still own one - an old one). I was factory trained on the Apple II and Apple III product lines and I was also trained on the Apple Lisa. I used to drive a VW van with Apple stickers on it (and I was a Democrat at the time so I perfectly fit the Apple demographic). I used to be a big fan of Apple. But when they went to the one-computer, one-company, one-fuhrer 1984 model they totally lost me (and market share).
You state own an "old Mac" but Apple lost you in 1984 (or are you making a poor reference to George Orwell?) and then you stated that "During the 1990's I tried to justify purchasing a Mac", which implies your "old Mac" was older than 1990. Did I infer something you did not intend to imply? Is your Mac only 16 years old??? If so, you are still basing your opinions on outdated information and experience.
I never saw it, but from what I've heard, you are probably right. It was one of the low budget operations.
I've used both platforms since they were first announced. I sincerely believe that Mac OS X is better than Windows for most users, because it is designed to be better than Windows.
The key is to find which one you like and which one will make you the most productive.
If the goal is productivity, Mac OS X usually beats Windows thoroughly. If the goal is to play video games, Windows is better.
Are you saying that one keyboard shortcut makes all the difference? Apple has key board shortcuts, too, you know... they've been around a lot longer than Windows keyboard shortcuts.
But REALLY funny. You pick the one command that was added in OS 8.5... jump to next running application. By the way, since the Mac has not had an ALT key since the very earliest Mac models, try using the Mac ALTernative key... the Apple/Command key.
However, while it wasn't as simple as 8.5s Command-Tab or Windows 3.0's Alt-Tab, the same functionality was available on earlier Mac OSs through the host of other keyboard shortcuts that allowed you complete control over menu items ( including a drop down menu of all running apps)....
< I agree. It was however, the one thing that was IBM proprietary and developed completely by IBM... not "off-the-shelf" tech from someone else. I was mostly being facetious with Dog... hence the "TA DA"... pulling his leash, so to speak. .
and has probably never touched a modern Mac...
Understood.
Did you lose your sense of humor somewhere???
I know it's tough to grasp, so I'll try it again. IBM owned the PC business just as Apple owns the Mac business. The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together. Therefore, IBM had a lock on PC hardware. They didn't have a lock on the parts that make a PC (as Apple doesn't have a lock on individual parts of a Mac), but the hardware system was closed because IBM wouldn't license the BIOS.
You claimed IBM tried to have a stranglehold on the HARWARE but Compaq reverse-engineered it.
You're trying to make an argument out of semantics when I wasn't trying to be too careful about my actual wording. Yes, they didn't reverse-engineer hardware, but software/firmware. But this is what freed the hardware.
However, this brings up another interesting point. If Golden Eagle were consistently angry at clones and knock-offs as he's always ranting against Linux about, he'd be trashing every PC except for those that were actually made by IBM.
Talk about being totally and absolutely wrong! BTW, most Macs you see in movies are paid product placement, not due to the loyalty of anyone in the industry.
>> Are you saying that one keyboard shortcut makes all the difference?<<
Absolutely, and I think most windows users who had open multiple apps would agree with me. Working with multiple applications on the Mac was, at best, cumbersome.
>>Apple has key board shortcuts, too, you know... they've been around a lot longer than Windows keyboard shortcuts.<<
Howard University has been around longer than Texas A&M. Which school is more highly ranked on US News type lists?
Give it up, Steve (Jobs). This is the problem: it would be one thing if you were correcting erroneous information I posted, but nothing I said was wrong, yet you're still trying to convince me how much better the Mac is than Windows. Why don't you just resign yourself to the fact that you, in your mind, have the tool of choice and others can decide for themselves? That's exactly what I do.
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.