Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kentuckyfried · Apr 7, 2004, 12:00 AM

How did Apple lose this ever important historical legal case? It's one of the key reasons why Windows has become the dominant OS platform the world over.

dtriska · Apr 7, 2004, 12:21 AM

From www.apple-history.com:

"At the same time, Sculley became locked in a battle with Microsoft's Bill Gates over the introduction of Windows 1.0, which had many similarities to the Mac GUI. Gates finally agreed to sign a statement to the effect that Microsoft would not use Mac technology in Windows 1.0--it said nothing of future versions of Windows, and Gates' lawyers made sure it was airtight. Apple had effectively lost exclusive rights to its interface design. This would prove to be an important document in future lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft, involving the Windows interface."

dru · Apr 7, 2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by kentuckyfried:
How did Apple lose this ever important historical legal case? It's one of the key reasons why Windows has become the dominant OS platform the world over.

One, yes. But it came down to a licensing agreement during the Scully era. Microsoft's successes have been due to legal maneuvering more than technological innovation. If IBM hadn't overlooked the importance of the OS for their new PC, Microsoft would've not had the cash cow to turn that machine's very marketplace against its creator: IBM. Later they used legal agreements to lock hardware makers into a per-CPU licensing scheme meaning they paid Microsoft whether or not they actually shipped DOS on the computer.

"Lawyers! Lawyers! Lawyers!" (with apologies to MS CEO Balmer).

MacGorilla · Apr 7, 2004, 08:26 AM

Scully, to his credit, does regret signing that agreement and under estimating Bill gates (Many did in the early days).

Link · Apr 7, 2004, 09:51 AM

Bill and Co basically gave Apple and IBM the royal shaft.

When Windows came out, of course the nice little legal battle in which apple signed themselves away.

With IBM, there was the joint venture involving OS/2..

Question? Why do you think the first version of Windows NT was NT 3.0? Huh? Thought so.

chabig · Apr 7, 2004, 11:14 AM

Why do you think the first version of Windows NT was NT 3.0?

I believe it was actually 3.1. And that was done to match the then-current version of Windows--Windows 3.1.

Chris

TimmyDee51 · Apr 7, 2004, 11:26 AM

No, it was actually because the first few major releases of NT were so unstable that MS didn't even bother releasing them outside of the company. That little nugget kills me. Look at where OS X is at version 4, let alone the previous versions. We may have complained about 10.0, but at least it was good enough to release.

Hi I'm Ben · Apr 7, 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by TimmyDee51:
No, it was actually because the first few major releases of NT were so unstable that MS didn't even bother releasing them outside of the company. That little nugget kills me. Look at where OS X is at version 4, let alone the previous versions. We may have complained about 10.0, but at least it was good enough to release.

It really wasn't good enough to release though. It was practically unuseable and I was stuck using 9 until 10.1. Stop window bashing to make yourselves feel better about owning a mac, it's annoying.

JLL · Apr 7, 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Link:
Bill and Co basically gave Apple and IBM the royal shaft.

IBM gave IBM the royal shaft - they shouldn't have released a computer made of off-the-shelf parts.

But IBM felt they were in a hurry and only gave themselves a year to make an Apple II competitor.

Before the PC IBM sold mainframes - now they sell mainframes.

JLL · Apr 7, 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
It really wasn't good enough to release though. It was practically unuseable and I was stuck using 9 until 10.1.

Perhaps it was unusable for a Mac OS user - but 10.0 could do many things that Mac OS 9 never could.

Mac OS X 10.0 wasn't a version 1.0 anyway, it was NeXTStep v5.

diamondsw · Apr 7, 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by JLL:
Perhaps it was unusable for a Mac OS user - but 10.0 could do many things that Mac OS 9 never could.

Mac OS X 10.0 wasn't a version 1.0 anyway, it was NeXTStep v5.

Nah, ever since OS X DP2 I think you could say it was no longer just an incarnation of NextStep. Once they added Carbon (OS X DP1) and removed the Workspace Manager (OS X DP2), it really wasn't just warmed over Next anymore.

OS X 10.0 wasn't ready for prime time, that's for sure, but they had to draw a line in the sand sometime.

JLL · Apr 7, 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by diamondsw:
Nah, ever since OS X DP2 I think you could say it was no longer just an incarnation of NextStep. Once they added Carbon (OS X DP1) and removed the Workspace Manager (OS X DP2), it really wasn't just warmed over Next anymore.

I didn't say it was a warmed over NeXT but that Mac OS X 10.0 was more stable than Windows NT 3.0 because it had a stable and tested (and old) foundation.

Rev-O · Apr 7, 2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by JLL:
IBM gave IBM the royal shaft - they shouldn't have released a computer made of off-the-shelf parts.

But IBM felt they were in a hurry and only gave themselves a year to make an Apple II competitor.

Before the PC IBM sold mainframes - now they sell mainframes.

Good ol' IBM. Everytime they come to the proverbial fork in the road, and they can choose between the long, brightly lit path and the dark and gloomy dead end, they say "Hey, the dark one looks good!"

Link · Apr 7, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
It really wasn't good enough to release though. It was practically unuseable and I was stuck using 9 until 10.1. Stop window bashing to make yourselves feel better about owning a mac, it's annoying.

awesome because it's totally sweet

yukon · Apr 8, 2004, 12:14 AM

There was Windows for Workgroups, but that was basically a copy of Win3.1 with networking and such tweaks. NT was a very different animal AFAIR. I have legit copies of WfW 3.11, please don't make me dig them up ;-) (actually, it runs in VPC)

Wiskedjak · Apr 8, 2004, 12:25 AM

Apple lost against Microsoft because they won against Xerox.

mitchell_pgh · Apr 8, 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
It really wasn't good enough to release though. It was practically unuseable and I was stuck using 9 until 10.1. Stop window bashing to make yourselves feel better about owning a mac, it's annoying.

I will agree that OS 10.0 wasn't good enough for OS 9 users, it was a necessary evil (similar to Windows 95).

Nobody is going to start developing for a platform if nobody is using the platform. We seriously should thank all of those public beta people out there that jumped all over the platform. Without them demanding applications etc. nobody would have created them.

I'm actually rather amazed that apple was able to make the jump.

Boondoggle · Apr 8, 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Apple lost against Microsoft because they won against Xerox.

was there a lawsuit?

Drakino · Apr 10, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by TimmyDee51:
No, it was actually because the first few major releases of NT were so unstable that MS didn't even bother releasing them outside of the company.

Wrong.

NT 3.1 was version 3.1 for two reasons.

1. To match the Windows 3.1 on the client side.

2. OS/2 was already at version 2. MS and IBM were working closely on OS/2 for a time, and when that breakup happened, MS took the code they could and made it into NT 3.1. IBM went on to make OS/2 Warp 3. Basicially both companies made a new product from the code they had, and named it something new. 3 was correct since it was the 3rd major revision of the OS/2-NT code.

I think Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2) finally dropped all the OS/2 compatibility.

ApeInTheShell · Apr 12, 2004, 10:58 PM

I think we give Apple too much of a hard time for Mac OS X 10.0 because we wanted it in our hands and the whole interface made it seem non Mac-like. There were not as many kernel panics as there are today: check 10.3.3 posts.
The features in 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 were not there and we didn't have support from major companies because of the perceived child like appearance supposedly making it an inferior operating system!
I think people dislike Windows because it did copy Mac OS and when Mac OS X came out Windows users criticized Apple of copying Windows taskbar and file system structure. From what I've observed on these boards, some people know Mac OS X was based on NeXt, others don't.

If anything Mac OS X 10.0 breathed new life into the Apple Macintosh and prepared it for the next generation.
Windows XP brought the same child-like appearanceand eventually Windows users were proudly following it by the beginning of 2002. The problem? Windows XP is a rehash people and that is what Mac OS 9.5 would have been.

I didn't answer your question but hopefully I gave you some insight into my perspective of the interface situation.

Wiskedjak · Apr 13, 2004, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
was there a lawsuit?

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/t...20040322.shtml