Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Apple I thought OSNews would be a good forum to talk about a matter that has been weighing on my mind lately primarily because the site has been so focused on Apple's patents and litigation as of late. The news that HP, the largest PC manufacturer in the world is spinning off or getting out of this business is what really prompted me to write this article.
Permalink for comment 486890
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Too much misinformation
by Mr. Dee on Thu 25th Aug 2011 23:38 UTC
Mr. Dee
Member since:
2005-11-13

This is the most arrogant lacking research editorial I have ever read from you. You are blaming Microsoft for something that was inevitable because of the openess of the IBM architecture and the work that took place in the industry to reverse engineers IBM's hardware to create an open architecture upon which the PC industry was built. Of course, Microsoft's early work with IBM and strategic licensing deal and clauses allowed the company to license PC-DOS to IBM and MS-DOS to anyone else. A recent article on PCMag even detailed why IBM chose not to use the Motorola CPU which was lacking certain 16 bit features that were already being delivered by the Intel 8086.

Also remember that Bill Gates was also exposed to the XEROX Alto and Xerox Star which both had early GUIs which both Microsoft and Apple copied ideas from. An employee who worked on Windows 1.0 said Bill even bought a Xerox Alto for employees to play with and get an idea of what he wanted to achieve. To say that Microsoft stole from Apple is very one sided and I guess you suffering from the high Steve Jobs resignation or trying in some way to suck up to get his attention through this 4 paragraph drivel of yours.

The PC would have been popular no matter what, period. Lets not forget that IBM would have been the bad guy in the 80's, there were other platforms that existed before and after the IBM PC such as the Altair, Commodore, Apple. Some even existed before the Apple 1. So, it is important to note, Apple was in this for a long time, they were only one out of many players in this business. Even some Steve Jobs decision gave the brand a bad rap such as the lack of a fan in the Apple II (but I am understanding the reason behind this is because of Steve Jobs hearing loss). The GUI was inevitable across all architectures and platforms. If Microsoft did not succeed, Linux probably would have instead, so Apple would have still been a 5% marketshare either way.

Also, remember that the Macintosh wasn't that popular either, it didn't have many applications during its debut, it wasn't until the Apple Writer, Postscript, Aldus PageMaker, QuarkXpress it gained some attention. Even when it did, it still did not get that mass appeal and adoption like the PC. Microsoft didn't get programs like Photoshop until version 3.0, PowerPoint not until 1990. So, Apple basically decided to make things be like this. John Sculley even admitted they were at fault and they should have followed the rest of the industry and migrated to Intel x86 and there were plans for the this, remember Star Trek

Reply Score: 20