Apple Copies Longhorn, MS Worried About Future Thefts

[patrick0brien]

Oh please, where do you think MS got their intial Windows interface from? Apple.

And where did Apple get their interface from? Xerox Parc.

They are both copiers!

Case closed.

-MontyZ

Well, Apple bought the GUI from PARC, MS copied it from Apple.

And before we start beating this particular subject into the ground PARC didn't invent the GUI either, there were many, many concurrent individuals working on the concept of the GUI for most of the 20th century - Apple happened to catch the right opportunity.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Oh please, where do you think MS got their intial Windows interface from? Apple.

And where did Apple get their interface from? Xerox Parc.

They are both copiers!

Case closed.

It's more accurate to say that both Apple's and Microsoft's GUIs were based on the desktop Metaphor developed at Xerox (along with the mouse). The original Mac OS more closely resembles the Parc efforts than the original Windows does the Mac OS. At least Windows attempted to distinguish itself by putting a menu bar atop each window, but like most of Microsoft's copying attempts, they didn't understand the reasoning behind why it wasn't there in the first place and created a more cluttered, kitchen sink working environment.

In terms of tabbed browsing, don't give Mozilla credit. The first web browser to incorporate tabbed browsing was Booklink InternetWorks which was bought by AOL in 1994 and disappeared shortly thereafter. In 2000, independent extension developer HJ van Rantwijk started the Multizilla project. This brought Tabbed Browsing to Mozilla.

 

[stcanard]

Oh please, where do you think MS got their intial Windows interface from? Apple.

And where did Apple get their interface from? Xerox Parc.

They are both copiers!

Case closed.

Ahh, yes. The good old "I'm going to say Apple's bad because they stole somethig from xerox and conveniently ignore that they actually licensed it with xerox's full permission" argument.

Try another one. I hear they stole the idea for networking from 3Com as well.

 

[ijimk]

one thing apple will always have over windows unless micr$oft starts making cpus, INTEGRATION! apple has made it so easy to get music publish your cal, IM, etc

keep trying microsoft and put your $399 Longhorn (piece of grabage)

Let the losers keep their longhorn and viruses.

 

[lalcan]

Think of it this way, the South Sandwhich Islands may not experience many terrorist attacks or high crime, but does that necessarily make it a better and safer place than the US?.

The South Sandwich Islands are uninhabited I'm pretty sure that makes the crime rate lower... The first murderer would also be the last :-D

 

[MarkCollette]

No, I don't. I didn't start using computers much until the Windows 9x and OS 8 days. Wasn't the switch from Win 3.1 to Win 9x also the switch from 16 to 32-bit as well? That makes it more difficult especially since the processors didn't run 16-bit natively like AMD has done with the Athlon 64, right? I'm not sure of this info, so correct me if I am wrong.

I agreed with everythig you wrote, except this.

Here's some background: The 386 chip is the one which adds 32bit support, and a proper implementation of protected mode. (The 286 had a gimped ptoected-ish mode). Before that, chips ran in real mode. Protected mode is what allows for segregating processes from each other, and the O/S. It also keeps processes from being able to use some instructions, do I/O, and handle interrupts. This forces processes to go through the operating system.

32 bit support in the 386 is fully backwards compatible. An instruction is assumed to be 16 bit unless is has a special prefix to bump it up to 32 bit, or there can be a global mode bit too. When the operating system does a context switch from a new 32 bit app to an old 16 bit app, all it has to do is properly set that mode bit, and everything works properly.

There is a third mode the CPU can be in, beyond real and protected, called V86 or Virtual 8086, which means that a process sees the system as if it were in real mode, but things it does get trapped by the O/S, and mapped to their equivalent protected mode counterparts. This is what happenned in Windows95 when old MSDOS games were run in a "DOS box".

So, the CPU specifically supports backwards compatibility of old applications, inside a new O/S.

 

[MarkCollette]

Windows 95 required at minimum a 386 DX processor. The SX was a 16-bit variant I believe, and the DX was 32-bit and included the math co-processor.

No.

The difference between the 386 SX and DX was that the SX had a 16 bit data bus and the DX had a 32 bit data bus. That means that the DX was faster at accessing memory, but in no affected compatibility with software.

The 486 SX and DX differed by the inclusion of a math coprocessor, in the DX.

http://www.cpu-info.com/index2.php?mainid=html/cpu/386.php

 

[bushgreen]

how the hell can bill say tiger copied longhorn. nearly every thing in lornhorn has copied OS X. vertor graphics, avalon(aqua) and many other things. windows has always been copying mac os.

 

[BurtonCCC]

I think I'd like to write this author a nice profane e-mail for even publishing something as homosexual (no offense directed to any that belong to this sexual preference on these forums) as that article... if there's any copying that's going on right now, it's Gates trying to figure out how Tiger is so amazing and then sticking all that into Longhorn... at least we have the satisfcation of knowing that anything with the Windows logo on it is going to get absolutely taken down by spyware, adware, and viruses... that helps me sleep at night...

Daniel

 

[TreeHugger]

Longhorn? What's that?

Oh really?

Its made by Microsoft? It's their new OS?

*shakes head and walks away...*

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I am sure that the Redmont guys are worried that Apple will copy all the security holes, the OS exposure to spyware, and the code to the well known M$ branded "blue screen of death". All the above have been a well kept secret at M$ headquarter so far. No other OS has been even close to the success M$ has had in these areas.
I hope M$ will keep its secret safe from the viscious copy cat Apple.

 

[beatle888]

....

excellent and truthful post. you clarified the difference between the two...and why apple will not dethrone microsoft...at least i dont think they will. like you said windows offers businesses solutions that apple hasnt even touched on.

oh well, im still not selling my stock

 

[feakbeak]

I agreed with everythig you wrote, except this.

Here's some background: The 386 chip is the one which adds 32bit support, and a proper implementation of protected mode. (The 286 had a gimped ptoected-ish mode). Before that, chips ran in real mode. Protected mode is what allows for segregating processes from each other, and the O/S. It also keeps processes from being able to use some instructions, do I/O, and handle interrupts. This forces processes to go through the operating system.

32 bit support in the 386 is fully backwards compatible. An instruction is assumed to be 16 bit unless is has a special prefix to bump it up to 32 bit, or there can be a global mode bit too. When the operating system does a context switch from a new 32 bit app to an old 16 bit app, all it has to do is properly set that mode bit, and everything works properly.

There is a third mode the CPU can be in, beyond real and protected, called V86 or Virtual 8086, which means that a process sees the system as if it were in real mode, but things it does get trapped by the O/S, and mapped to their equivalent protected mode counterparts. This is what happenned in Windows95 when old MSDOS games were run in a "DOS box".

So, the CPU specifically supports backwards compatibility of old applications, inside a new O/S.

Interesting, I never knew that. I was way off, thanks for the clarifiction.

 

[JeffHendr]

Issue of MS/Apple copying: The folks at Apple are really the only ones who know for sure who copied who. The story before this article came out, however, was that Apple had simply taken their iTunes native search feature and extended it across the entire OS. Previous articles that I've read claim that Microsoft has been in a mad rush to try to copy the spotlight search feature, but that they were most likely going to have to ditch the effort in order to meet their deadlines. ...One thing to keep in mind, however, is that Microsoft owns 1/4 of Apple, and when Bill Gates made the decision to rescue Apple from bankruptcy, his reason for doing so was: Apple is one of the few companies still making innovations in the computer industry. We know that Bill Gates admires Apple's innovation, and has copied many parts of Apple's past OS's. We also know, however, that Steve Jobs gives Microsoft credit for the fast user switching that keeps getting brought up on this board. ...Microsoft is simply attempting, and seems to have been at least partially successful in distracting everyone from the real issue-Apple beat them to the release date for an excellent implementation of several amazing new features in Tiger.

As far as the backward compatability issue goes: OS X was a dramatic change from OS 9. Apple took the risk of starting over from scratch with their OS in the name of innovation and stability (well, not totally from scratch, I guess, since it's Unix based). I really wish that Microsoft had the courage to do the same. Microsoft is still using the same out-dated OS core/concept that they've been using for years, propped up by convoluted .dll files and attempts to deal with obsolete error-handling. Until Microsoft scraps their old system and starts over, each revision of Windows will be much larger and slower than the previous version and will become fairly unstable after a few months of use. I've gladly left the PC world and will gladly accept a degree of non-backwards compatability if it means that my computer operates smoothly and efficiently without never-ending restarts and re-installation of the OS. ...Besides, when my previous version of Final Cut Pro was no longer compatable with OS 10.3, Apple simply mailed me an updated version for OS 10.3 for free. Nice.

 

[dejo]

...One thing to keep in mind, however, is that Microsoft owns 1/4 of Apple

I don't think so.

 

[patrick0brien]

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that Microsoft owns 1/4 of Apple, and when Bill Gates made the decision to rescue Apple from bankruptcy

-JeffHendr

Whoa! I'm sorry to say, JeffHendr, but these are very distorted facts. The facts were that MS invested $150m in non-voting stock in order to stave off anti-trust concerns (yeah, it's wierd, I know) and to enable the 5-year dev contract with Apple. The $150m was a pittance to Apple and did nthing to save them. At that time Apple was losing multiples of that amount per quarter and if someone wanted to save Apple fiscally from the outside, there would have had to be a far greater investment in the order of $700m or so just to break even.

As a fellow conected with the US Air Force you understand that for a plane to stay aloft, there has to be a balance of lift to weight. The aircraft that Apple was in 1996 was so heavy that a mere 150 points of lift wouldn't have stopped the downward force - just delaying for a month or so.

But yes the $150m was a deal, but for not the purposes or results you stated.

BTW- MS divested this stock about 7 years ago now, and I don't know where you got the 1/4th ownership idea from. Despite their losses at the time, Apple was worth far more that $600m back then.

 

[Rod Rod]

BTW- MS divested this stock about 7 years ago now, and I don't know where you got the 1/4th ownership idea from. Despite their losses at the time, Apple was worth far more that $600m back then.

It's a persistent an urban legend. Kill it, debunk it, prove it false and it still returns.

I guess the reason this myth doesn't die is that it helps MS users feel less dirty by sullying (by association) Apple and (falsely) legitimizing MS ripping off Apple.

 

[MarkCollette]

Interesting, I never knew that. I was way off, thanks for the clarifiction.

No problem - I'm glad some of my mucking in assembler finally paid off

 

[patrick0brien]

It's a persistent an urban legend. Kill it, debunk it, prove it false and it still returns.

I guess the reason this myth doesn't die is that it helps MS users feel less dirty by sullying (by association) Apple and (falsely) legitimizing MS ripping off Apple.

-Rod Rod

True, but I think it's also a great illustration of how strange a world corporate finance really is - especially when regulators are involved.

In an attempt to make sense of it, the mind is forced to make assumptions just to make the pieces fit. Then one person with that picture finds another who did the same, they agree, and further bolstering their assumed picture of the event in question, find more and more that have the same picture, and it becomes 'fact' via the "hear it once, it's rumor, hear it twice, it must be true" method.

 

[Rod Rod]

patrick0brien: I agree that it's a matter of people trying to make sense of things. Maybe one day Apple will have to buy a stake in Microsoft. Stranger things have happened.

 

[patrick0brien]

patrick0brien: I agree that it's a matter of people trying to make sense of things. Maybe one day Apple will have to buy a stake in Microsoft. Stranger things have happened.

-Rod Rod

Hmm. I think that'll precipitate a complete collapse of the space time contuum.