Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Aug 2012 17:43 UTC
Legal We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.
Thread beginning with comment 533326
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
More irony (though more loosely related)
by zima on Thu 30th Aug 2012 21:31 UTC
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

A few years later, MacOS 7 was apparently ported to the PC... where that "superior" (or so the narrative goes - oh, and a base for Macintosh OS until 9) OS ran on top of DOS, just like Win 3.x or GEM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project

Icing on the cake: the CEO under which the costly m68k -> PowerPC migration happened, admitted that this was a mistake, that Apple should have went with Intel back then already...
http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7045
(but it being a mistake seemingly didn't stop the PR machine, the cult, like with the ridiculous campaign of "PowerPC 'supercomputer on a chip' G4" based on a few hand-picked SIMD benchmarks)


PS. And in the general spirit of pointing out ~contemporary tech from the past - beside Newton and Tandy Zoomer there was also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad#1990s

In 1993 [...] Amstrad released the PenPad, a PDA similar to the Apple Newton, and released only weeks before it. It was a commercial failure, and had several technical and usability problems. It lacked most features that the Apple Newton included, but had a lower price at $450.

While seemingly a quite horrible device (links in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenPad ) ...that's beside the point - all of those very early models were more or less horrible, anyway (starting with the basic idea of handwriting recognition - can you read reliably even your own handwriting, NVM from other people?)

Edited 2012-08-30 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Oh dear. DRDOS is not MSDOS/PCDOS, you know that, right? DRDOS was way, way more advanced. Did you actually even read more than "system 7.1" and DOS? Most of the capabilities listed in that article didn't come to DOS till Windows 95.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Irrelevant in the context of historical and "more loosely related" irony (you do understand the concept, right? Did you actually read even the title of my post?), NVM how "ran on top of DOS, just like Win 3.x or GEM" is 100% factual (why do you think I wrote "DOS"?) - and certainly goes against the usual "superior" narrative about all that the classic Mac OS supposedly was.

You remind me about those "bitter, broken and have a bunch of straws you are desperately clutching at [...] take a break and chill [...] proving to be a very sore loser" words that I read somewhere in this thread...

Reply Parent Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

(but it being a mistake seemingly didn't stop the PR machine, the cult, like with the ridiculous campaign of "PowerPC 'supercomputer on a chip' G4" based on a few hand-picked SIMD benchmarks)


Ah yes, the "G4 is supercomputer" BS - which was based solely on some outdated US export restrictions, which considered CPUs to be supercomputers if they exceeded a certain number of Gflops. By the same absurd standards, the PS2 was also considered a super computer:

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=950767

For most technology companies, something that would be one of their most shameful moments. But Apple? I'm not even sure that would make the top 10 in Apple marketing hall-of-shame. After all, this is the same company that tried to make random playback sound like an amazing new feature, when the 1st-gen iPod shuffle came out:

http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20050112043302/http://www.apple.com/ipod...
(WARNING: may cause adverse reaction for those with severe allergies to bullshit)

Or there was the time that they tried to associate themselves with George Harrison, in a cynical attempt to cash-in on his death:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011203234543/http://www.apple.com/

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18



haha! I remember that. I also remember my first thought: what, the standard ipod can't?? For real???

Reply Parent Score: 1

kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Icing on the cake: the CEO under which the costly m68k -> PowerPC migration happened, admitted that this was a mistake, that Apple should have went with Intel back then already...

Apple could not use intel chips before 2006.

simple reason: Mac OS was not CPU agnostic.

Mac OS X was. (but it came 5 years later.)

...beside fact that Intel only match SIMD part of Motorola/Apple (4 years old) AltiVec with SSE2... ;) that is called "piece of crap" - Apple did use AltiVec to speed up Composite Desktop in early 2000s while Microsoft made Composite Desktop in 2006. and it require DirectX 9 GPU... lol!

Reply Parent Score: 0

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You do know that classic Mac OS switched from 680x0 chips to PowerPC, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2