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.
Thread beginning with comment 486979
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by phoudoin
by unclefester on Fri 26th Aug 2011 07:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by phoudoin"
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Nothing forbid Apple to port their operating system to the PC open architecture, which was NOT made opened by Microsoft contrary to what the article try to imply but by IBM.

Wrong. The BIOS was reverse engineered by Compaq. This allowed 100% IBM compatible clones.

If their operating system was available too on PC open architecture at time Microsoft released their Windows 1.0, there is no doubt that, indeed, Apple will have then get 95% market share.

Very unlikely. The Mac was an unloved orphan was almost no useful software when it was first released.

The fact that a very inferior operating system on an initially inferior hardware BUT open and standardized PC platform took over the well integrated Macintosh is very much telling: high integration is not the ultimate selling point for everybody. In fact, too tight integration is not that well selling.

Ever used DOS? I think not.

DOS was lightning fast on very low powered hardware and remarkably stable. However it needed some skill to use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by phoudoin
by phoudoin on Fri 26th Aug 2011 09:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by phoudoin"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Yes, BIOS was not opened by IBM. But they did nothing when Compaq reverse engineered it. IBM let the PC platform be *cloned*. The let it become the open platform.
While Compaq technically allowed 100% IBM compatibles clones, IBM legally allowed it by doing nothing against it.

The Mac was an unloved orphan was almost no useful software when it was first released.

So was Windows 1.0 software ecosystem at start too.

At this time, the simple fact to feature a GUI API was a selling point.
But, true, it's not certain that the Mac API will have bring developers to this operating software more than the Windows 1.0 API.

Maybe just selling a very pro (for this time, that would be a 512x342 monochrome screen!) graphics card only supported by MacOS on a PC clone will have done alone the radical switch too.

What drove Macs sales in the early years were the DTP software that MacOS made possible on a personal computer. What made this impossible on a PC at this time was the lack of a good graphic card and a good GUI, both technology that Apple could have made available on PC if they wanted to. And that would have drove their card and software the same way it did for their Macintosh.

But they didn't want that.
They want a well designed integrated computer.
They got it.
They also got a niche market with it: the niche of well designed integrated computers, while the not-well designed not integrated computers market made Microsoft and PC clones makers rich.

That's a choice which did it, not a fatality, or a trick by competitors.

Ever used DOS? I think not.

DOS was lightning fast on very low powered hardware and remarkably stable. However it needed some skill to use.


Sadly, I must confess I'm old enough to have used DOS.
But the point is that at DOS time circa 86, the Macintosh was offering both a better hardware platform and a better, graphical, operating system.
And still, it lost its market share to an inferior hardware and a inferior software.

Which can't mean anything but that people find something in an inferior hardware and software PC platform that they didn't find in the Mac one.
Which mean that integrated product is not a win solution for everything.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by phoudoin
by phoudoin on Fri 26th Aug 2011 09:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by phoudoin"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Sorry for the too many english mistakes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by phoudoin
by unclefester on Fri 26th Aug 2011 10:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by phoudoin"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


But the point is that at DOS time circa 86, the Macintosh was offering both a better hardware platform and a better, graphical, operating system.
And still, it lost its market share to an inferior hardware and a inferior software.


Back in 1986 the Mac was little more than an expensive toy.

The vast majority of "proper" computers were purchased by businesses. Macs were actually vastly inferior to PCs for business use.

Most businesses used PC for three things CAD, spreadsheets and word processing. The Mac was basically useless for all of these purposes due to a tiny 10" monochrome screen, limited software, low performance and almost no peripherals.

In 1986 most people who needed to use a computer already had expertise in using them and had no real need for a GUI.

Mac "defects" circa 1986:

- no high end graphics (so no CAD or games).
- no professional CAD software
- high price
- tiny 10" monochrome screens
- obsolete processor (68000 8MHz)
- very limited RAM (4MB maximum)
- very expensive SCSI harddrives
- non standard networking
- limited software
- very limited choice of peripherals and printers.

Back in 1986 my brother was using a HP 386DX-16 16MB workstation PC (he's a surveyor). No Mac available could have possibly replaced this machine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by phoudoin
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 26th Aug 2011 19:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by phoudoin"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Yes, BIOS was not opened by IBM. But they did nothing when Compaq reverse engineered it. IBM let the PC platform be *cloned*. The let it become the open platform.
While Compaq technically allowed 100% IBM compatibles clones, IBM legally allowed it by doing nothing against it.


IBM didn't have any recourse. The reverse engineered BIOS was a clean room design. One engineer in one room read the specifications of the IBM BIOS to an engineering in a second room who was coding the Compaq BIOS.

That is perfectly legal, and there is nothing IBM could have done after the fact. IBM wasn't being magnanimous; their hands were tied. If there were software patents back then, IBM probably would have sued Compaq.

Reply Parent Score: 1