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 533341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

certainly goes against the usual "superior" narrative about all that the classic Mac OS supposedly was.


You understand very little about what they actually did. That much is clear. DRDOS was a DOS compatible OS, but it wasn't just a DOS clone. Do some research.

What they actually did was more akin to Windows 95.. the UI layer and shell ran as a user land process on a fully multitasking OS with drivers and a kernel. Again, DOS didn't really manage to do most of this till version 7, which was the basis of Windows 95.

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...


Not really, because you don't actually seem to understand the basics of what they achieved. If all they did was make a little shell that just wrapped up DOS calls (like Windows 1.0), then maybe you'd be on to something. Read the capabilities of DRDOS, it was fcuking awesome sauce and made DOS (both MS and PC) look like a toy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You are indeed very "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" - that much is clear, when you imply I couldn't even read an article that I stumbled upon, some time ago (it's not a quickly thrown in discovery of today, the DOS irony bit just recalled it), in my general exploration of & some interest about the old OS field.

It was running on top of a DOS (the horror! ...or how the narrative went, and why it's historically ironic), GEM or Win 3.x could ran on top of it as well.
Either way, you yourself mention it was at most like Win95 ...which just shows how irrelevant what you say is, in context - Win95 was derided on the very same basis in the usual narrative.

Edited 2012-08-31 01:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2