Microsoft vs The Free World

[Newby]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

But now there's a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it's being cast by Microsoft (Charts, Fortune 500). The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents. And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google (Charts, Fortune 500), Microsoft is pulling no punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free software won't be free anymore.

...

The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.

[iago]

I think that this is interesting for a couple reasons.

First of all, it's proof of how bad software "patents" actually are. A good part of the community has known for a long time that patenting things like "double clicking", "tabbed interfaces", and "icons" was a bad idea. Every programmer here has likely violated somebody's patent in code they've written. So far, the only saving grace is that nobody has enforced this. If Microsoft goes through with this, hopefully it'll raise awareness of this problem enough that the patent system will be reformed.

On that point, this also shows that software patents can help companies enforce a monopoly. If Microsoft suddenly throws down the patent on windows, icons, tabs, and the "e" key, any company using them may be forced to pay ridiculous extortion fees (err, license fees) or, basically, shut down. That's basically how a monopoly works.

Second, the fact that Microsoft, after all these years, has finally revealed their hand shows that they're scared. You don't hold your cards for 10 years then finally throw them on the table for no reason. They're beginning to see Linux as more of a threat, and now they want to do something about it.

In any case, unless somebody withdraws or settles, I don't see this being over for a few years at least.

[iago]

And furthermore...

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

If Microsoft goes after Linux's user base, I seriously hope that IBM or Linux or BSD or somebody compiles a list of Microsoft infringements and goes after Microsoft's user base. Because Microsoft is totally opening the door on that one. Can you imagine if BSD demanded $1000 in royalties from every Windows user in the world? Microsoft would likely face a class-action lawsuit from millions of their users!

[Skywing]

Honestly, I'd be skeptical that the reporter had a clue enough to really describe what was going on here accurately.  Phrases like "FOSS violates 235 patents" seem to be describing a dangerous lack of understanding on someone's part.

[Warrior]

And furthermore...

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

If Microsoft goes after Linux's user base, I seriously hope that IBM or Linux or BSD or somebody compiles a list of Microsoft infringements and goes after Microsoft's user base. Because Microsoft is totally opening the door on that one. Can you imagine if BSD demanded $1000 in royalties from every Windows user in the world? Microsoft would likely face a class-action lawsuit from millions of their users!

I'm pretty sure IBM has cross patent agreements with Microsoft. They will most likely sit this one down.

I think the main person behind this is Ballmer, the guy is a nutcase. The way he rants on and on and how he's hell bent on killing OSS (Which is impossible considering how spread out it is).

Open Source isn't a company Ballmer, you can't send your lawyers marching in.

I thought this would be the dawn of a new Microsoft, an interoperable one (With the recent EU comforming) and the obvious security effort in Vista. However, Ballmer is just a die hard fanatic (comparable to Richard Stallman imho but on opposite sides of the spectrum) who is really ruining the face of Microsoft.

[Ender]

LOL... like Microsoft didn't steal from Apple The corporate world is so corrupt. Just give the fucking money to Africa, god damnit.

Anyways, I don't think this is a good idea by Microsoft, for the following reasons:

(1) Microsoft already stole everything from Apple's orchard.
(2) I think the case is hopeless. The menus "Applications," "Places," and "System" in linux guis are as standard as tabbed browsing in browsers. Yet you don't see Mozilla suing Microsoft for tabbed browsing. Furthermore, how else do you make a word processor? and a spreadsheet? and a presentation program like power point? It'slike putting a patent on particle accelators: it's plain stupid. It thwarts advancement in science and technology and puts money in corrupt hands.
(3) I heard that IBM and other companies set aside funds for linux's defense.
(4) Microsoft is showing itself to be desperate and giving linux more public attention.
(5) So many corporations use linux that it would be disastrous if they all of a sudden had to pay royalties... wtf kind of court would allow this?
(6) If Microsoft wins, everyone else loses (royalties from users and distributors). If Microsoft loses, only Microsoft loses.

[rabbit]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh we don't talk about that

[Warrior]

LOL... like Microsoft didn't steal from Apple

What have they stolen from Apple?

[Ender]

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linux_Violates_235_Patents_Says_Microsoft

lol! The comments are so hilarious... especially some of the ignorant ones.

[Warrior]

LOL... like Microsoft didn't steal from Apple

What have they stolen from Apple?

?

I'd like to see some solid proof here.

[iago]

I'm pretty sure IBM has cross patent agreements with Microsoft. They will most likely sit this one down.

However, IBM is heavily invested in Linux, and a blow to Linux would be a blow to IBM.

What have they stolen from Apple?

I haven't looked up the patents, so I don't know if any patents have been violated. However, the entire look and feel of Windows 95 is a lot like the Apple of the time, XP was a lot like the apple of its time, and guess what? Vista's look and feel is a lot like the modern Apple stuff. I don't know if any patents have been violated, though.

[Warrior]

What have they stolen from Apple?

I haven't looked up the patents, so I don't know if any patents have been violated. However, the entire look and feel of Windows 95 is a lot like the Apple of the time, XP was a lot like the apple of its time, and guess what? Vista's look and feel is a lot like the modern Apple stuff. I don't know if any patents have been violated, though.
[/quote]

Apple never coined UI elegance. They just got it out of the door faster. Some of the features in Vista were present WAY before OSX introduced them. I'm not going to argue who did what first though, it's silly because most of the things (including the alleged patent violations) are evolutionary UI features which should not be patentable and will most likely not hold up in court.

[MyndFyre]

(1) Microsoft already stole everything from Apple's orchard.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.  EVER.

(2) I think the case is hopeless. The menus "Applications," "Places," and "System" in linux guis are as standard as tabbed browsing in browsers. Yet you don't see Mozilla suing Microsoft for tabbed browsing. Furthermore, how else do you make a word processor? and a spreadsheet? and a presentation program like power point? It'slike putting a patent on particle accelators: it's plain stupid. It thwarts advancement in science and technology and puts money in corrupt hands.

Tabbed browsing?  Really?  Do you know how long the tabbed document interface has been around?

Microsoft Visual Studio .NET was the first major Microsoft product to use a tabbed document interface that conformed to design guidelines (such as Ctrl+Tab support).  Its final version was released with the .NET Framework 1.0 in Q1 2002 (VS.NET was available in beta much earlier).  When did Firefox incorporate tabbed browsing?  In "Lucia," version 0.3, released October 14, 2002.

So quit bitching about how Microsoft "stole" the idea of using tabs for documents

(3) I heard that IBM and other companies set aside funds for linux's defense.

That's the point of the MS rep.  It's not that free if companies are setting aside these kinds of funds.

(4) Microsoft is showing itself to be desperate and giving linux more public attention.

It's marketing.  Not desparation.  Do you know much about marketing?  Successfully marketing your product means making it look better than the competition, especially when you charge a per-seat licensing fee and your competition does not.

(5) So many corporations use linux that it would be disastrous if they all of a sudden had to pay royalties... wtf kind of court would allow this?

I don't know.... the same court that awarded a woman multiple millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself?

Realistically, though, the user companies won't have to pay the royalties.  It's the companies that have infringed on the patents.  They won't go back and charge the users post-hoc fees.

(6) If Microsoft wins, everyone else loses (royalties from users and distributors). If Microsoft loses, only Microsoft loses.

So, twenty fat people form a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's for making them fat.  Clearly, these people had a choice about whether to eat McDonald's and chose to do so, perhaps to excess.  If they win, only McDonald's loses.  But if McDonald's wins, everyone else loses.  Therefore, despite McDonald's being in the right, we should rule against them because it's in the more-common good?

[Joe]

Microsoft stole the ability for a window to overlap another window from Apple. I'm not even joking. Look at Windows 1.

[Newby]

Microsoft stole the ability for a window to overlap another window from Apple. I'm not even joking. Look at Windows 1.

Are you sure this didn't exist way back in the old UNIX days?

[Warrior]

Microsoft stole the ability for a window to overlap another window from Apple. I'm not even joking. Look at Windows 1.

Wrong. Yet again.

[nslay]

(1) Microsoft already stole everything from Apple's orchard.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.  EVER.

Its speculation, but it has been thought that Microsoft has stolen code from Apple.  It has also been thought that Apple stole code from Xerox.  This was a long time ago though...I doubt anything modern reflects anything they might have stolen.  They made a movie about this called Pirates of Silicon Valley.
P.S.  Xerox had a "mouse", a GUI, a word processor, and ethernet, 10 years before anybody else had it.

Please see any book on Xerox PARC or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC

It is best known for inventing laser printing, Ethernet, the modern personal computer graphical user interface (GUI) paradigm, object-oriented programming, and ubiquitous computing.

So, I don't think its too far fetched to think that Apple or Microsoft stole at least ideas from Xerox and each other.

[/quote]

(2) I think the case is hopeless. The menus "Applications," "Places," and "System" in linux guis are as standard as tabbed browsing in browsers. Yet you don't see Mozilla suing Microsoft for tabbed browsing. Furthermore, how else do you make a word processor? and a spreadsheet? and a presentation program like power point? It'slike putting a patent on particle accelators: it's plain stupid. It thwarts advancement in science and technology and puts money in corrupt hands.

Tabbed browsing?  Really?  Do you know how long the tabbed document interface has been around?

Microsoft Visual Studio .NET was the first major Microsoft product to use a tabbed document interface that conformed to design guidelines (such as Ctrl+Tab support).  Its final version was released with the .NET Framework 1.0 in Q1 2002 (VS.NET was available in beta much earlier).  When did Firefox incorporate tabbed browsing?  In "Lucia," version 0.3, released October 14, 2002.

So quit bitching about how Microsoft "stole" the idea of using tabs for documents

Opera is usually credited as the first browser having tabbed browsing, far before Mozilla and Microsoft even thought about it.
Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(browser)

Tabbed browsing with a true multiple document interface (MDI) was an original Opera innovation in the field of publicly available web browsers.

Considering Opera came out circa '94-'95...I'd say Opera would own any such patent, not Microsoft. 

(3) I heard that IBM and other companies set aside funds for linux's defense.

That's the point of the MS rep.  It's not that free if companies are setting aside these kinds of funds.

Anybody who knows BSD/Linux would already know that there is a heavy maitenance cost to run BSD/Linux.  The only advantage to BSD/Linux is that you don't need to buy licensing.
As an example, one of the FreeBSD core developers cite $170/hr for consulting services and IT work.

(4) Microsoft is showing itself to be desperate and giving linux more public attention.

It's marketing.  Not desparation.  Do you know much about marketing?  Successfully marketing your product means making it look better than the competition, especially when you charge a per-seat licensing fee and your competition does not.

It sounds like Microsoft is uneasy about competition from the Apple and Linux front...especially with lots of talk around the net of people moving to Apple/Linux over Vista.
When I worked at the math help center, I noticed a steady increase of Apple laptops appearing in the help center over the years (People would bring laptops to do online work).  It went from rarely ever seeing an Apple laptop in 2003 when I started, to frequently seeing Apple laptops in 2006.  I don't have numbers, but the mere observation suggests that the Apple userbase is growing.

(5) So many corporations use linux that it would be disastrous if they all of a sudden had to pay royalties... wtf kind of court would allow this?

I don't know.... the same court that awarded a woman multiple millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself?

Realistically, though, the user companies won't have to pay the royalties.  It's the companies that have infringed on the patents.  They won't go back and charge the users post-hoc fees.

Although unrelated, the same court awarded a woman millions of dollars for far more than merely spilling coffee on herself.  I joked about it too, until I pissed someone off about it.

In 1992, McDonald's settled with Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who suffered third-degree burns from hot coffee that she ordered at one of the company's drive-thrus.[15] The lawsuit, which became known as the "McDonald's coffee case", is a well-known product liability lawsuit in the United States that became a flashpoint in the debate in the US over tort reform.

Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when the accident happened. After receiving the order, her grandson pulled the car forward and stopped so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she did, the entire contents spilled into her lap. The sweatpants she was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. She was hospitalised for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafts and debridement treatments.

I think thats exactly Microsoft's intent...they want to destroy Linux.  For our sake (and even yours) they hopefully won't. (Yes I hate Linux too, but I don't want it to be destroyed)

(6) If Microsoft wins, everyone else loses (royalties from users and distributors). If Microsoft loses, only Microsoft loses.

So, twenty fat people form a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's for making them fat.  Clearly, these people had a choice about whether to eat McDonald's and chose to do so, perhaps to excess.  If they win, only McDonald's loses.  But if McDonald's wins, everyone else loses.  Therefore, despite McDonald's being in the right, we should rule against them because it's in the more-common good?

If Microsoft wins...who knows what will happen?  If they can do this against Linux, they can probably do it against BSD (which would be ironic).  Maybe even Apple?

[iago]

Tabbed browsing?  Really?  Do you know how long the tabbed document interface has been around?

I'm pretty sure Lynx was doing that before Opera.

[nslay]

Tabbed browsing?  Really?  Do you know how long the tabbed document interface has been around?

I'm pretty sure Lynx was doing that before Opera.

Come now, curses' window/terminal functionality is hardly the same as tabbed browsing as we think of it.
However, in such a case...you're right.  emacs would be another example (multiple buffers).

[iago]

By the way, going back to the original topic, here's another article where a Microsoft spokesman claimed that the open-source movement is dead because most open source is funded by corporations. Of course, there's nothing in the open source creed saying that's not possible:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php

And here's a good explanation/rebuttal from a guy at infoworld:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/05/microsoft_confi.html

In case you thought that Microsoft was winning in the war against open source, you just need to read Bill HIlf's quotes to see that Microsoft clearly feels that it's losing. Or is in trouble. Big time. You don't go as negative on Apple as Gates has unless you're worried that you're losing. You don't bash open source as being...just like Microsoft unless you're worried that it is racing ahead.

Every time Microsoft says something bad about Linux, it always makes me feel good for the opensource world, because it means they're doing enough to attrack The Eye (think Lord of the Rings).


<edit> Another question is, why aren't they naming the infringing patents? Is it because they are afraid the patents will be debunked? Or because they know the opensource community will work around them? And don't ask me, I'm just quoting a Slashdot article here.

[nslay]

<edit> Another question is, why aren't they naming the infringing patents? Is it because they are afraid the patents will be debunked? Or because they know the opensource community will work around them? And don't ask me, I'm just quoting a Slashdot article here.

It's Microsoft, they want to destroy Linux...why can't it be that simple?
If they start sueing home users for patent infringement for using Linux (much like the RIAA/MPAA-approach), I'm sure that will hurt Linux a lot.  The article Newby posted has a hint of that RIAA/MPAA-approach on page 3.

EDIT: Ah, you said "aren't"...disregard my post.

[iago]

EDIT: Ah, you said "aren't"...disregard my post.

Make me!

If they start sueing home users for patent infringement for using Linux (much like the RIAA/MPAA-approach), I'm sure that will hurt Linux a lot.

Until somebody finds any one single patent violation Microsoft has made and starts going after Microsoft customers. If Microsoft can do it, so can others!

[Warrior]

Additionally, there is a law that states Microsoft much present such information because anything else is hurting the business of people like RedHat by Microsoft making such outlandish claims.

[Warrior]

Its speculation, but it has been thought that Microsoft has stolen code from Apple.

Purely speculation. I'd like to see definitive proof.

In other news, It's speculation but it's been thought that the world is flat.

[iago]

Torvalds' response. He ripped into MS good!

"It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does. Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousand of really 'fundamental' patents... The fundamental stuff... has long, long since lost any patent protection."

Torvalds also commented on Microsoft's stated intention not to sue Linux users: "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD than with any lawsuit."

[Warrior]

Torvalds' response. He ripped into MS good!

"It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does. Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousand of really 'fundamental' patents... The fundamental stuff... has long, long since lost any patent protection."

Torvalds also commented on Microsoft's stated intention not to sue Linux users: "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD than with any lawsuit."

Yes Microsoft violates patents, however they have cross patent agreements (You don't sue us, we dont sue you) with IBM.

I think this is almost like the "Who has the most nuclear weapons" fiasco of the Cold war.

[iago]

I think this is almost like the "Who has the most nuclear weapons" fiasco of the Cold war.

Otherwise known as, "opening a whole can of worms."

[chuck]

If MS does have the guts to mention what patents linux violates, and they are unavoidable, most linux users probably won't pay.

[Warrior]

If MS does have the guts to mention what patents linux violates, and they are unavoidable, most linux users probably won't pay.

I think this is mostly just to spread FUD as I meantioned above. They won't release the said patents because GrokLaw will just dissect it and knock one after the other down.

They're being evil, but playing it smart.

Edit: Wow.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615

[Ender]

LOL... like Microsoft didn't steal from Apple

What have they stolen from Apple?

?

I'd like to see some solid proof here.

Sorry, first time checking this thread since I posted.

(1) Apple made the first GUI (http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm)
(2) MS ripped off Netscape in IE
(3) I believe MS just made an iTunes equivalent, which many people are complaining about

Besides, only in the corporate world are there such things as "patents". In academia, ideas are built off of, not patented. You credit the discoverer (as the Platonists would say) or the inventor (so the Formalists would say). But you don't fucking patent it. I really do dislike business -.- but I do admit to being ignorant about it and that my thoughts on business may consequentially change.

I really don't care about Microsoft taking ideas from Apple... what I do care about is when Microsoft sues others for taking ideas from them, when MS does the same...

[iago]

....ideas are built off of, not patented. You credit the discoverer (as the Platonists would say) or the inventor (so the Formalists would say). But you don't fucking patent it. I really do dislike business -.- but I do admit to being ignorant about it and that my thoughts on business may consequentially change.

Legally, you can't patent ideas, either. However, in the 80's, some stupid US court ruled that it was ok to patent algorithms/software. Possibly one of the worst decisions ever made.

[Joe]

Microsoft stole the ability for a window to overlap another window from Apple. I'm not even joking. Look at Windows 1.

Wrong. Yet again.

I'm almost with whoever it was you were debating with in the OT forum. Where's your citation?

Here's mine:

[Newby]

Here's mine:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Windows1screen.png[/img]

That's not overlapping. As far as I can tell, you can see the bottom of the top window and top of the bottom window clearly.

Also, where's your source that Apple had this before? And that a GUI for UNIX didn't have it before Apple?

[Warrior]

Microsoft stole the ability for a window to overlap another window from Apple. I'm not even joking. Look at Windows 1.

Wrong. Yet again.

I'm almost with whoever it was you were debating with in the OT forum. Where's your citation?

Here's mine:

Windows 2.0 (as ruled by a Federal Court) had licensed code from Apple (in which Microsoft was deeply involved in pre-Windows).
In fact, Windows stemmed from the fact that Apple did not want to make an agreement with Microsoft who wrote applications for the Mac.

In fact, without Microsoft, Mac would never have had the productivity suites to make it a contender in corporate Markets.

It was ruled that the Mac user interface was an idea (and an obvious one at that) which could not be copyrighted.

Moving on to the bigger issue, despite patents Microsoft could not have stolen code is played an active part in writing. It had licensed it for Windows 1.x and was ruled that it was licensed for 2.x as well.

As an outcome of that lawsuite, Apple then lost the ability to claim any sort of ownership over overlapping Windows.

Are you done being a smartass yet?

[Warrior]

LOL... like Microsoft didn't steal from Apple

What have they stolen from Apple?

?

I'd like to see some solid proof here.

Sorry, first time checking this thread since I posted.

(1) Apple made the first GUI (http://imrl.usu.edu/OSLO/technology_writing/004_003.htm)
(2) MS ripped off Netscape in IE
(3) I believe MS just made an iTunes equivalent, which many people are complaining about

Besides, only in the corporate world are there such things as "patents". In academia, ideas are built off of, not patented. You credit the discoverer (as the Platonists would say) or the inventor (so the Formalists would say). But you don't fucking patent it. I really do dislike business -.- but I do admit to being ignorant about it and that my thoughts on business may consequentially change.

I really don't care about Microsoft taking ideas from Apple... what I do care about is when Microsoft sues others for taking ideas from them, when MS does the same...

Read the post I directed at Joe as well.

[Joe]

Apple's GUI was made first. Also, look at this:

iPod came before the Zune.

iTunes came before the advanced versions of Windows Media Player, which exibit the same features.

OS X's UI came before Aero, which exhibits the same sort of 3-D look ad feel.

iTunes' Music Store came before Microsoft's Music Store.

.Mac came before Live.

Am I missing anything?

EDIT -
I'm not sure how much these are related since I did very minimal Mac programming, but Cocoa came before .NET, and if I remember correctly it supports both the C and J families.

Also, how am I a smartass for advocating against you? You get angry far too easily to be any fun to debate with. If you honestly think I'm trying to make you look like a moron, you're wrong -- I'm trying to make you realize my point.

[Warrior]

Apple's GUI was made first. Also, look at this:

And? Who has the marketshare now? Ok.

iPod came before the Zune.

Don't compare an iPod to a Zune. The Zune is leaps ahead of it in terms of useability (especially in the user interface)

iTunes came before the advanced versions of Windows Media Player, which exibit the same features.

iTunes was PURCHASED from another company dipshit.

OS X's UI came before Aero, which exhibits the same sort of 3-D look ad feel.

Aero prototypes were shown off before at WinHEC (and doing better features) than Aqua(with Quartz3D/Extreme/Bullshit).
Aero was doing 3D when Aqua was just compositing the desktop then blitting it with fancy effects.

iTunes' Music Store came before Microsoft's Music Store.

I'm sure there were Music stores before iTunes.

.Mac came before Live.

Live sucks, but it doesn't suck as hard as .Mac. Also, Live is not one specific entity, it's a new brand with an arch of "Web2.0" style applications for use on the Web. (This is more comparable to Google than .Mac to be honest)

Am I missing anything?

Some common sense.

[Joe]

Some common sense.

Ah, now I remembered why I never get into debates with you.

[Warrior]

Some common sense.

Ah, now I remembered why I never get into debates with you.

Because you'll always lose. Remember than next time.

[Ender]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

[Warrior]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

and I think you're wrong.

I'm still waiting for a legitimate instance where Microsoft stole from Apple..

And I'm waiting..
and waiting..

Apple wasn't the first to have any of the features you listed, they didn't innovate on anything. They have had evolutionary steps during the lifetime of Aqua. It's the same for anything (Beryl/Aero/Xgl/Compiz/Whatever) all have evolutionary steps in useability and feature-sets.

Really, there is no way to argue against that.

[Ender]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

and I think you're wrong.

I think I was under Jesus's influence when I said that.

[Warrior]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

and I think you're wrong.

I think I was under Jesus's influence when I said that.

Then why would you side with Joe? He's going to hell for premarital sex.

[Ender]

I just wanted to use the word "cogent". Haven't used that in a while.

[Warrior]

fair enough.

[Ender]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

and I think you're wrong.

I'm still waiting for a legitimate instance where Microsoft stole from Apple..

And I'm waiting..
and waiting..

Apple wasn't the first to have any of the features you listed, they didn't innovate on anything. They have had evolutionary steps during the lifetime of Aqua. It's the same for anything (Beryl/Aero/Xgl/Compiz/Whatever) all have evolutionary steps in useability and feature-sets.

Really, there is no way to argue against that.

And I contend that the same logic applies to Linux "stealing" from Microsoft.

Two questions:
1. Do you think that Linux really stole from Microsoft?
2. Do you agree with Microsoft's suggestion of sueing linux for the so-called "patent infringements"?

[Joe]

Alright, to end this, one thing Apple DID to first with absolutely no room for debating. In 1984, Apple released a fully-functional, home user targetted, graphical operating system.



I don't claim to know what month Apple came out with this system, but assuming it was as late as December, it took Microsoft -at least- half a year, until June 1985, to come out with Windows 1. By the way, for extra points, which is prettier?



Also, take a look at the wikipage for TrueType. Who created it? And I believe that you're using it right now. In fact, this text is being displayed in a TrueType font, probably. Of course, you might suck and be using a crappy font, but I kind of doubt it.

[Armin]

Yes, show a clean SS of the apple showing the desktop, and show an SS of Windows with multiple applications open. Thanks for the daily dose of bias.

[Joe]

Oh, like I'm really screenshotting software from the mid-80's myself. Those came from Wikipedia.

Also, note, that Windows was incapable of un-maximizing a Window, hence why it's ugly.

[Newby]

I'm not sure how much these are related since I did very minimal Mac programming, but Cocoa came before .NET, and if I remember correctly it supports both the C and J families.

Isn't Cocoa an API? I would compare Cocoa to the Win32 API but I'm ignorant so eh.

[Armin]

Oh, like I'm really screenshotting software from the mid-80's myself. Those came from Wikipedia.

I think you missed my point. I know you're not screen shotting them yourself.

[Newby]

Also, take a look at the wikipage for TrueType. Who created it? And I believe that you're using it right now. In fact, this text is being displayed in a TrueType font, probably. Of course, you might suck and be using a crappy font, but I kind of doubt it.

As part of Apple's new tactic of distancing itself from Adobe, Apple licensed TrueType to Microsoft, in exchange for a license for TrueImage, a Microsoft-developed PostScript-compatible printer control language that Apple planned to use in their laser printers. This printer language was never actually included in any Apple products.

Who made out on that deal? Microsoft. Microsoft: 1; Apple: 0.

Hey, look, I'm joe! "Also, take a look at the wikipage for OpenType. Who created it? And I believe that you Mac users have an implementation on your operating system."

Apple's support for OpenType in Mac OS X 10.4 includes most advanced typographic features necessary for Latin script languages, such as small caps, oldstyle figures, and various sorts of ligatures. It does not yet support contextual alternates, positional forms, nor glyph reordering as handled by Microsoft's Uniscribe library on Windows. Thus, Mac OS X 10.4 does not offer support for Arabic or Indic scripts via OpenType (though such scripts are fully supported by existing AAT fonts).

Totally stupid point on OpenType, Joe.

EDIT -- Personally, I think the Apple interface is ugly. I've never liked the menu buttons and such being on the very top..


I thought this was interesting...

The continuing development of Microsoft Windows had given birth to an interface that was competitive with Apple's. Combined with a huge base of low-cost computers and peripherals and an improving software suite, an increasing number of potential customers turned to the "Wintel" standard.

Apple, relying on high profit margins to maintain their massive R&D budget, never developed a clear response. Instead they sued Microsoft for theft of intellectual property.[25] The lawsuit dragged on for years before finally being thrown out of court. Worse, the lawsuit distracted management while a deep rot developed within the engineering ranks, which became increasingly unmanageable. At first there was little outward sign of the problem, but a series of major product flops and missed deadlines destroyed Apple's reputation of invincibility.

At about the same time, Apple branched out into consumer electronics. One example of this product diversification was the Apple QuickTake digital camera, one of the first digital cameras brought to the consumer market. A more famous example was the Newton, coined a PDA by Sculley, that was introduced in 1993. Though it failed commercially, it defined and launched a new category of computing and was a forerunner of devices such as Palm Pilot and PocketPC.

During the 1990s, Apple greatly expanded its computer lineup. It offered a multitude of models ("Quadra 840av", "Performa 6116"), but many felt Apple failed to adequately differentiate one model from another and the cost of supporting so many products adversely affected profitability. Apple lost market share to Microsoft Windows, particularly Windows 95 — a major turning point in the history of the rival Windows operating system.

Apparently Apple can think up good ideas, but can't capitalize on them. What a shame.

[nslay]

Apple's GUI was made first. Also, look at this:

iPod came before the Zune.

iTunes came before the advanced versions of Windows Media Player, which exibit the same features.

OS X's UI came before Aero, which exhibits the same sort of 3-D look ad feel.

iTunes' Music Store came before Microsoft's Music Store.

.Mac came before Live.

Am I missing anything?

EDIT -
I'm not sure how much these are related since I did very minimal Mac programming, but Cocoa came before .NET, and if I remember correctly it supports both the C and J families.

Also, how am I a smartass for advocating against you? You get angry far too easily to be any fun to debate with. If you honestly think I'm trying to make you look like a moron, you're wrong -- I'm trying to make you realize my point.

That's right, Microsoft doesn't invent, innovate or discover anything...they buy and copy ideas
Let's look at some major pieces of software history

- Microsoft buys QDOS, markets it as MS-DOS
- Microsoft buys license to AT&T UNIX, modifies and markets it as Xenix
- Microsoft copies GUI idea from Apple/Xerox...do you think Microsoft came up with a GUI idea by itself out of the blue?  Or is it more likely, Xerox, who invented the GUI, and then gave a tour to Apple, and not Microsoft, influenced Microsoft?
- Microsoft and IBM form agreement to develop OS/2...OS/2 3.0 recasted as NT (Oh yeah, and ex-DEC VMS developers were also brought on board, BSD network stack used)
- Xerox PARC Bravo heavily influenced Microsoft Word...Bravo's creator brought on board

As for the market share argument...Let's rememeber Microsoft toted a DOS-based system as far into the future as 2001.  Keeping in mind DOS is 1980s technology, market share does not imply technological superiority, and neither do fads (of which there are many, like C# and .NET) or appearances.

Resources:
Microsoft buys QDOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QDOS

QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) was the working title for 86-DOS, an operating system developed and marketed by Seattle Computer Products for its Intel 8086-based computer kit. QDOS had a command structure and application programming interface that imitated that of Digital Research's CP/M operating system, which made it easy to port programs from the latter. The system was purchased by Microsoft and developed further as PC-DOS and MS-DOS.

OS/2 and NT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

IBM grew concerned about the delays in development of OS/2 2.0 and the diversion of IBM funds earmarked for OS/2 development towards Windows[citation needed]. Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.

BSD network stack and NT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

In addition, the permissive nature of the BSD license has allowed many other operating systems, both free and proprietary, to incorporate BSD code. For example, Microsoft Windows has used BSD-derived code in its implementation of TCP/IP and bundles recompiled versions of BSD's command line networking tools with its current releases. Also Darwin, the system on which Apple's Mac OS X is built, is partly derived from FreeBSD 5. Various commercial UNIXes, such as Solaris, also contain varying amounts of BSD code.

- If you're at all familiar with socket programming, this should be self evident!
VMS and NT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation

Dave Cutler, who led the development of RSX-11M, RSX-11M+, VMS and then VAXeln, left Digital in 1988 to lead the development of Windows NT. A rumor circulated for a long time that WNT=VMS+1 (increment each letter by one). Cutler has never confirmed nor denied this.

http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/vmsbigot.html
- You know you're a VMS Bigot when
You know where NT stores its data if they really need it to be saved

Xenix modified AT&T UNIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

Xenix was a version of the Unix operating system, licensed by Microsoft from AT&T in the late 1970s.

- Keeping in mind, "licensed" meant you were given rights to the AT&T Unix source

Microsoft purchased a license for Version 7 Unix from AT&T in 1979, and announced on August 25, 1980 that it would make it available for the 16-bit microcomputer market.

Microsoft Word heavily influenced by Bravo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word

Many concepts and ideas of Word were brought from Bravo, the original GUI word processor developed at Xerox PARC. Bravo's creator Charles Simonyi left Xerox PARC to work for Microsoft in 1981.

Xerox PARC and Apple engineer visits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC

The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was given Apple stock in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.

This is some funny ass shit ...

[MyndFyre]

....ideas are built off of, not patented. You credit the discoverer (as the Platonists would say) or the inventor (so the Formalists would say). But you don't fucking patent it. I really do dislike business -.- but I do admit to being ignorant about it and that my thoughts on business may consequentially change.

Legally, you can't patent ideas, either. However, in the 80's, some stupid US court ruled that it was ok to patent algorithms/software. Possibly one of the worst decisions ever made.

Really?

Let's say Nico Mak Computing (the company that formerly made WinZip) spends US $7 million and a couple years developing a new algorithm that improves both effective compression and speed for all files by 30%.  Why shouldn't they have protection to market that algorithm on their own and reap the benefits?  Why should anyone else be able to take that program, reverse-engineer it, and then make it freely available?

Algorithms should be patentable, as should processes.  Knowledge, ideas - of course not.  UI - probably not, though I could see a good argument in favor of UI patents (costs of usability studies and the like).  

Algorithms and processes are the application of knowledge in a structured and repeatable way.  That's why knowledge and ideas are not patentable, but algorithms and processes should be.

Patents do not limit the Fair Use rights of people in academia to study the algorithms or the like.  In fact, if Linux was distributed freely, I believe (though I am not a lawyer) that there wouldn't be an issue with it distributing a reverse-engineered version of the algorithm.  However, because other corporations market and sell Linux, if these commercial Linuxes include this algorithm, they are violating the patent.

[Warrior]

... Blah Blah Blah

You're not even reading my points. You lose. You think posting some images you find on a website will save your argument?

[Warrior]

I think Joe put up a cogent and potentially winning argument.

and I think you're wrong.

I'm still waiting for a legitimate instance where Microsoft stole from Apple..

And I'm waiting..
and waiting..

Apple wasn't the first to have any of the features you listed, they didn't innovate on anything. They have had evolutionary steps during the lifetime of Aqua. It's the same for anything (Beryl/Aero/Xgl/Compiz/Whatever) all have evolutionary steps in useability and feature-sets.

Really, there is no way to argue against that.

And I contend that the same logic applies to Linux "stealing" from Microsoft.

Two questions:
1. Do you think that Linux really stole from Microsoft?
2. Do you agree with Microsoft's suggestion of sueing linux for the so-called "patent infringements"?

No. I've stated a lot excessively in this topic I don't agree with them.

[Warrior]

That's right, Microsoft doesn't invent, innovate or discover anything...they buy and copy ideas
Let's look at some major pieces of software history

A lot of companies do this, it isn't for a lack of innovation it's because it's easier to buy something and extend it (iTunes, the .NET Framework, etc..) than to write your own version. This is of course assuming that the software you purchase shows promise.

As for the market share argument...Let's rememeber Microsoft toted a DOS-based system as far into the future as 2001.  Keeping in mind DOS is 1980s technology, market share does not imply technological superiority, and neither do fads (of which there are many, like C# and .NET) or appearances.

That makes no sense. Then having a DOS based (Even until Windows 9x) is irrelevant when compared to the fact that their success was with the bundling of Applications such as Word and IE.

C# and .NET are definitely not "fads". It just shows how misinformed you are on the subject.

In addition, the permissive nature of the BSD license has allowed many other operating systems, both free and proprietary, to incorporate BSD code. For example, Microsoft Windows has used BSD-derived code in its implementation of TCP/IP and bundles recompiled versions of BSD's command line networking tools with its current releases. Also Darwin, the system on which Apple's Mac OS X is built, is partly derived from FreeBSD 5. Various commercial UNIXes, such as Solaris, also contain varying amounts of BSD code.

What's the problem with this again? They're using a reliable and proven codebase for a crucial part of the operating system. The BSD license permits this, and it is the basis of Open Source to share. I don't see a problem with this, now if it were GPL stuff then yea you could cry about it.

[iago]

....ideas are built off of, not patented. You credit the discoverer (as the Platonists would say) or the inventor (so the Formalists would say). But you don't fucking patent it. I really do dislike business -.- but I do admit to being ignorant about it and that my thoughts on business may consequentially change.

Legally, you can't patent ideas, either. However, in the 80's, some stupid US court ruled that it was ok to patent algorithms/software. Possibly one of the worst decisions ever made.

Really?

Let's say Nico Mak Computing (the company that formerly made WinZip) spends US $7 million and a couple years developing a new algorithm that improves both effective compression and speed for all files by 30%.  Why shouldn't they have protection to market that algorithm on their own and reap the benefits?  Why should anyone else be able to take that program, reverse-engineer it, and then make it freely available?

I would say no. Maybe I'm a communist, but I like to see everybody benefit from something like that. Suddenly, people on different operating systems can no longer interact, and people on one operating system are forced to buy a (potentially) crappy product just because other people do.

Although on the plus side, I read somewhere that there's a provision in US Copyright law that allows reverse engineering for the purposes of cross-platform compatibility. I'm not sure if that's true, or if that applies here, though.

[nslay]

That's right, Microsoft doesn't invent, innovate or discover anything...they buy and copy ideas
Let's look at some major pieces of software history

A lot of companies do this, it isn't for a lack of innovation it's because it's easier to buy something and extend it (iTunes, the .NET Framework, etc..) than to write your own version. This is of course assuming that the software you purchase shows promise.

As for the market share argument...Let's rememeber Microsoft toted a DOS-based system as far into the future as 2001.  Keeping in mind DOS is 1980s technology, market share does not imply technological superiority, and neither do fads (of which there are many, like C# and .NET) or appearances.

That makes no sense. Then having a DOS based (Even until Windows 9x) is irrelevant when compared to the fact that their success was with the bundling of Applications such as Word and IE.

Sure, they did a good job on Office and Visual Studio, but market share says nothing about technological superiority.  And surely, even you could agree that 9x was technologically inferior to every other OS of the time.

C# and .NET are definitely not "fads". It just shows how misinformed you are on the subject.

Mark my words, I've seen it all too often, a few years from now they'll be toting something new.
How misinformed I am?  Look, I understand you have to go with the flow to make money with Microsoft technologies, but Microsoft technologies seem nothing more than a fad.  Take for example a language like C ... 30 years after the fact, and its still widely used.  I really doubt C# will be used 30 years from now, and I'd be surprised if something else didn't replace it 5 years from now.  Same goes with .NET.  They're fads.  How about the stinking cow pie VB?  MFC?  I am sure there are more examples, but they come and go.  Its about the all newest and greatest technology Microsoft made.  In all fairness, if Microsoft is to continue making money on development tools, they'd have to keep inventing (and reinventing) new tools anyhow.

In addition, the permissive nature of the BSD license has allowed many other operating systems, both free and proprietary, to incorporate BSD code. For example, Microsoft Windows has used BSD-derived code in its implementation of TCP/IP and bundles recompiled versions of BSD's command line networking tools with its current releases. Also Darwin, the system on which Apple's Mac OS X is built, is partly derived from FreeBSD 5. Various commercial UNIXes, such as Solaris, also contain varying amounts of BSD code.

What's the problem with this again? They're using a reliable and proven codebase for a crucial part of the operating system. The BSD license permits this, and it is the basis of Open Source to share. I don't see a problem with this, now if it were GPL stuff then yea you could cry about it.

The problem is, and returning back to our original topic, based on these tidbits, I really don't think Microsoft could have written a full blown GUI back in the 80s by itself.  They've bought and/or imported some of the most complicated portions of all the above mentioned software.  It really doesn't give me the impression that they could have written a GUI.  I'd say even NT is probably largely more of a creation of IBM, than it is a Microsoft creation.
Haha, yeah I'm not a fan of GPL.

[Joe]

Isn't Cocoa an API? I would compare Cocoa to the Win32 API but I'm ignorant so eh.

I think Cocoa was the entire backbone of X-Tools, like .NET is the backbone of VS8. But of course, I've been mistaken in the past, right?

As part of Apple's new tactic of distancing itself from Adobe, Apple licensed TrueType to Microsoft, in exchange for a license for TrueImage, a Microsoft-developed PostScript-compatible printer control language that Apple planned to use in their laser printers. This printer language was never actually included in any Apple products.

Who made out on that deal? Microsoft. Microsoft: 1; Apple: 0.

Hey, look, I'm joe! "Also, take a look at the wikipage for OpenType. Who created it? And I believe that you Mac users have an implementation on your operating system."

Apple's support for OpenType in Mac OS X 10.4 includes most advanced typographic features necessary for Latin script languages, such as small caps, oldstyle figures, and various sorts of ligatures. It does not yet support contextual alternates, positional forms, nor glyph reordering as handled by Microsoft's Uniscribe library on Windows. Thus, Mac OS X 10.4 does not offer support for Arabic or Indic scripts via OpenType (though such scripts are fully supported by existing AAT fonts).

Totally stupid point on OpenType, Joe.

In the first point, it says that Apple gave software which Microsoft built their entire text rendering system off of, in exchange for software that Apple never used. Who made more use of someone elses software?
Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

The second point is somewhat like comparing Windows against WINE. Well, not really, but you know what I mean -- they're two different things entirely. I'm too lazy to look at Wikipedia right now, but I'm going to assume OpenType was named after, and inspired by, TrueType, which means that TrueType came first.

[Warrior]

Sure, they did a good job on Office and Visual Studio, but market share says nothing about technological superiority.  And surely, even you could agree that 9x was technologically inferior to every other OS of the time.

Sure Windows was technologically inferior at the time to the Unixes, however they presented the User with a unified solution to their desktop needs. That's why they won out the desktop war in the end.

Mark my words, I've seen it all too often, a few years from now they'll be toting something new.
How misinformed I am?  Look, I understand you have to go with the flow to make money with Microsoft technologies, but Microsoft technologies seem nothing more than a fad.  Take for example a language like C ... 30 years after the fact, and its still widely used.  I really doubt C# will be used 30 years from now, and I'd be surprised if something else didn't replace it 5 years from now.  Same goes with .NET.  They're fads.  How about the stinking cow pie VB?  MFC?

Both MFC and VB are still widely used. VB6 has been made legacy with the advent of VB.NET and MFC is actively ported to the managed C++.

I am sure there are more examples, but they come and go.  Its about the all newest and greatest technology Microsoft made.  In all fairness, if Microsoft is to continue making money on development tools, they'd have to keep inventing (and reinventing) new tools anyhow.

.NET and C# are veyr innovative languages. I can give you link to new features in C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5 if you'd like.

The problem is, and returning back to our original topic, based on these tidbits, I really don't think Microsoft could have written a full blown GUI back in the 80s by itself.  They've bought and/or imported some of the most complicated portions of all the above mentioned software.  It really doesn't give me the impression that they could have written a GUI.  I'd say even NT is probably largely more of a creation of IBM, than it is a Microsoft creation.
Haha, yeah I'm not a fan of GPL.

Well this is purely speculation by you, I think they wrote their own code (albiet maybe taking a few implementation ideas from POSIX/Unix and the like). Microsoft may be evil and have evil business practices, but their products are far from innovative.

They have the best developer platform and tools on the market right now. Let's not mention productivity suites like Office 12 and the Expression suite.

[MyndFyre]

Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Joe, if Apple's so great, why don't you use it?

[Newby]

that Apple gave software which Microsoft built their entire text rendering system off of, in exchange for software that Apple never used. Who made more use of someone elses software?
Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

[iago]

that Apple gave software which Microsoft built their entire text rendering system off of, in exchange for software that Apple never used. Who made more use of someone elses software?
Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

Agreed, 100%. In the modern world, it's not about having the best product, it's about marketing it the best. That goes for software and everything else.

[Joe]

Apple: 1; Microsoft: 0

Joe, if Apple's so great, why don't you use it?

Because we're not in 1984 anymore. I never once said I support Apple more than Microsoft. I only stated points as a Devil's Advocate against Warrior.

As far as software availability, and debatably, ease of use, yes, Microsoft does win in 2007. However, these ideas were created by Apple in the 80's, when they were better than Microsoft.

Who sucks at business? Apple: 0; Microsoft: 1

I agree entirely, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple first created these technologies, and therefore if they were legal ownership of them (which this topic is about, Microsoft owning the technologies they took from Apple), Apple would own them.

Also, see my reply to MyndFyre.

[Warrior]

As far as software availability, and debatably, ease of use, yes, Microsoft does win in 2007. However, these ideas were created by Apple in the 80's, when they were better than Microsoft.

READ what I said, Microsoft played a roll in developing this stuff when they worked with Apple (Which predates Windows 1.0). Read the goddamn facts, you're (once again) looking like a moron.

You know nothing about this topic, get lost.

[nslay]

Sure, they did a good job on Office and Visual Studio, but market share says nothing about technological superiority.  And surely, even you could agree that 9x was technologically inferior to every other OS of the time.

Sure Windows was technologically inferior at the time to the Unixes, however they presented the User with a unified solution to their desktop needs. That's why they won out the desktop war in the end.

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

Mark my words, I've seen it all too often, a few years from now they'll be toting something new.
How misinformed I am?  Look, I understand you have to go with the flow to make money with Microsoft technologies, but Microsoft technologies seem nothing more than a fad.  Take for example a language like C ... 30 years after the fact, and its still widely used.  I really doubt C# will be used 30 years from now, and I'd be surprised if something else didn't replace it 5 years from now.  Same goes with .NET.  They're fads.  How about the stinking cow pie VB?  MFC?

Both MFC and VB are still widely used. VB6 has been made legacy with the advent of VB.NET and MFC is actively ported to the managed C++.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

I am sure there are more examples, but they come and go.  Its about the all newest and greatest technology Microsoft made.  In all fairness, if Microsoft is to continue making money on development tools, they'd have to keep inventing (and reinventing) new tools anyhow.

.NET and C# are veyr innovative languages. I can give you link to new features in C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5 if you'd like.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

The problem is, and returning back to our original topic, based on these tidbits, I really don't think Microsoft could have written a full blown GUI back in the 80s by itself.  They've bought and/or imported some of the most complicated portions of all the above mentioned software.  It really doesn't give me the impression that they could have written a GUI.  I'd say even NT is probably largely more of a creation of IBM, than it is a Microsoft creation.
Haha, yeah I'm not a fan of GPL.

Well this is purely speculation by you, I think they wrote their own code (albiet maybe taking a few implementation ideas from POSIX/Unix and the like). Microsoft may be evil and have evil business practices, but their products are far from innovative.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow.  There must be some reason why Harvard researched, Pirates of Silicon Valley, speculated that they "stole" code from Apple.

They have the best developer platform and tools on the market right now. Let's not mention productivity suites like Office 12 and the Expression suite.

Sure, ok.

[Warrior]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

There may not be demand, because they've been replaced by newer and more efficient technologies. They are still maintained (visible in the Managed MFC port, and VB.NET for those who find it too hard to transition). I see where they are coming from in a sense, they need to innovate and sometimes that means sacraficing backwards compat.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

Well Windows originally was just a DOS Window Manager, it didnt' become a full blown OS until late in the game. I'd argue that even Win9x was just a 32Bit hack ontop of DOS. Regardless, it still had some innovatons like PnP and innovations in the mere presentability of itself. Despite being lacking in the department of strictly technological niceties it was easy to use and established itself as the defacto system on Operating Systems.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow. 

It's not hard to develop a Window Manager ontop of DOS. It's essentially why Win1.0 was not such a spectacular success they may of wished.

I think it's credible that they could of done it, it may not of been as fancy as what Apple offered but it still did what it was designed to do. Win95 was probably when they broke more away from DOS and more torwards a standalone environment (which probably began with the first uses of the NT Kernel on the desktop)

 

Sure, ok.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

[MyndFyre]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

The Windows product line through Win95 had cooperative multitasking, which means that a process had to surrender its thread to the kernel; Windows 3.0 introduced preemptive multitasking to this Windows product line via 386 Enhanced mode (NT had it starting at 3.1, which was the first real version, probably so-named because of the Windows 3.1 release and its similarities in design).

Cooperative multitasking means that a process owns a processor until it surrenders it by calling a system service function.  Preemptive multitasking means that the OS assigns time slices (in the Windows world, the process scheduler refers to these as "quanta"), and the kernel/process scheduler "preempts" processes by instructing the system timer to call an ISR at specified intervals.  Preemptive multitasking introduces possible synchronization issues because time slices are typically assigned on a per-thread basis.  That's why sometimes spinlocks are preferable synchronization primitives to something like an OS event or wait handle - a spinlock keeps the processor until the time slice is up, rather than yielding the rest of the time slice to the processor by using something like a wait handle.

This is likely one of the reasons that Win32 threading like we know it didn't really come into play until Windows 95 since Windows 3.0 still supported real (8086) and standard (80286) mode, and couldn't truly preempt virtual 8086 applications except in 386-enhanced mode.

[nslay]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my father works in the Microsoft technologies division of global services at IBM.  From a professional stand point, there is little to no demand for VB, MFC, and many other older Microsoft technologies...its all about the new.  They are fads, they come and go...you'd be a fool to believe otherwise since your job depends on your keeping tabs with the newest and greatest developer technologies from Microsoft. (P.S. Keeping in mind my father is 63 years old, had already once retired from IBM...he got rehired by IBM 10 years later because he knew the newest and greatest Microsoft technologies ... thats whats in demand).

There may not be demand, because they've been replaced by newer and more efficient technologies. They are still maintained (visible in the Managed MFC port, and VB.NET for those who find it too hard to transition). I see where they are coming from in a sense, they need to innovate and sometimes that means sacraficing backwards compat.

I'm sure you could.  Microsoft today is very capable ... not so sure about the 1980s though.

Well Windows originally was just a DOS Window Manager, it didnt' become a full blown OS until late in the game. I'd argue that even Win9x was just a 32Bit hack ontop of DOS. Regardless, it still had some innovatons like PnP and innovations in the mere presentability of itself. Despite being lacking in the department of strictly technological niceties it was easy to use and established itself as the defacto system on Operating Systems.

Please keep in mind that I mentioned only technologies they developed in the 1980s...notably, none of which were there own.  I find it hard to believe they could develop a full blown GUI by themselves, it did not seem they had the knowhow.

It's not hard to develop a Window Manager ontop of DOS. It's essentially why Win1.0 was not such a spectacular success they may of wished.

It's not like we're talking about a curses interface with mouse support, DOS Shell already had that, but an actual full blown GUI.

I think it's credible that they could of done it, it may not of been as fancy as what Apple offered but it still did what it was designed to do. Win95 was probably when they broke more away from DOS and more torwards a standalone environment (which probably began with the first uses of the NT Kernel on the desktop)

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seems you are not aware Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME were all DOS hacks.  NT was a joint innovation between IBM and Microsoft, originally to be OS/2 but redubbed as NT by Microsoft who later left IBM holding the bag on OS/2.  NT only become widely used on home desktop when XP was released.  I'd sooner believe IBM did most of that work, than Microsoft purely because Microsoft wasn't able to develop a full blown OS before (neither did it probably have the resources to write a full blown OS).  Microsoft additionally brought ex-DEC VMS developers on board to work on NT, people who really knew OS theory and design.  VMS is one of the most impressive works I have ever seen, DEC pioneered a lot of OS design and research. 

Sure, ok.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

Not sarcasm at all.

[nslay]

Considering Mac OS did not have preemptive multitasking or many other "modern" OS features...it still was technologically superior to DOS since it did have selective multitasking.  That's just sad.

When Win1.0 came out, it had (some, not sure what type) of multitasking readily availible. Of course this could of just been a hack, but it's still something.

The Windows product line through Win95 had cooperative multitasking, which means that a process had to surrender its thread to the kernel; Windows 3.0 introduced preemptive multitasking to this Windows product line via 386 Enhanced mode (NT had it starting at 3.1, which was the first real version, probably so-named because of the Windows 3.1 release and its similarities in design).

Cooperative multitasking means that a process owns a processor until it surrenders it by calling a system service function.  Preemptive multitasking means that the OS assigns time slices (in the Windows world, the process scheduler refers to these as "quanta"), and the kernel/process scheduler "preempts" processes by instructing the system timer to call an ISR at specified intervals.  Preemptive multitasking introduces possible synchronization issues because time slices are typically assigned on a per-thread basis.  That's why sometimes spinlocks are preferable synchronization primitives to something like an OS event or wait handle - a spinlock keeps the processor until the time slice is up, rather than yielding the rest of the time slice to the processor by using something like a wait handle.

This is likely one of the reasons that Win32 threading like we know it didn't really come into play until Windows 95 since Windows 3.0 still supported real (8086) and standard (80286) mode, and couldn't truly preempt virtual 8086 applications except in 386-enhanced mode.

Ah I hadn't realized DOS based Windows had cooperative multitasking too.

[Warrior]

It's not like we're talking about a curses interface with mouse support, DOS Shell already had that, but an actual full blown GUI.

Yep, you implement a Window Manager, clipping, controls, etc. It doesn't have to be fancy (this wasy '87ish IIRC) but it could be done with the technology they had available and is by no means rocket science. Maybe it wasn't pretty, but I haven no doubt they could of pulled it off.

I may have misinterpreted you, but it seems you are not aware Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME were all DOS hacks.  NT was a joint innovation between IBM and Microsoft, originally to be OS/2 but redubbed as NT by Microsoft who later left IBM holding the bag on OS/2.  NT only become widely used on home desktop when XP was released.  I'd sooner believe IBM did most of that work, than Microsoft purely because Microsoft wasn't able to develop a full blown OS before (neither did it probably have the resources to write a full blown OS).  Microsoft additionally brought ex-DEC VMS developers on board to work on NT, people who really knew OS theory and design.  VMS is one of the most impressive works I have ever seen, DEC pioneered a lot of OS design and research. 

I'm fully aware of that, however perhaps Microsoft did not see the need for NT until they saw the limitations brought forth by 9x. Why is it so hard for you to believe they simply hired some specialists in the OS department who were a part of the staff before the venture? Even though 9x(Especially 98) and ME were DOS Hacks they implement a lot of modern features of the x86 architecture. That is no simple feat. I think you're just writing the fact that they use DOS as the underlying system off as a reason why they couldn't possibly have engineered an operating system.
 

[MyndFyre]

One of the reasons Microsoft brought DEC guys on board was because NT was cross-platform (ran on PPC, MIPS Alpha, and x86, among others). 

Saying that IBM did most of the work because Microsoft had never written a full OS before is like saying that Novell wrote most of Linux because Linus had never written an OS before....  It's grossly ignorant.

[nslay]

One of the reasons Microsoft brought DEC guys on board was because NT was cross-platform (ran on PPC, MIPS Alpha, and x86, among others). 

Saying that IBM did most of the work because Microsoft had never written a full OS before is like saying that Novell wrote most of Linux because Linus had never written an OS before....  It's grossly ignorant.

Keeping in mind that IBM was #1 and the largest computer corporation in the world at the time, yes, very ignorant indeed. IBM not only had the resources to build an OS, but the actual staffing.  Microsoft may be big now, but they weren't so big back in '88.  IBM had a crack team of 300 working on OS/2.  So yeah, I believe IBM did more work on OS/2 than Microsoft!

[Warrior]

Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Microsoft broke up with IBM before OS/2 became anything important anyhow. It was initially textbased and got a WM in 1988, after Win2.0 was out.

Considering OS/2 took two years and change to release in 1985, it's perfectly plausible that Microsoft could of played a (significant) roll in the development of OS/2.

[nslay]

Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

Microsoft broke up with IBM before OS/2 became anything important anyhow. It was initially textbased and got a WM in 1988, after Win2.0 was out.

Considering OS/2 took two years and change to release in 1985, it's perfectly plausible that Microsoft could of played a (significant) roll in the development of OS/2.

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

[Skywing]

I'm fully aware of that, however perhaps Microsoft did not see the need for NT until they saw the limitations brought forth by 9x. Why is it so hard for you to believe they simply hired some specialists in the OS department who were a part of the staff before the venture? Even though 9x(Especially 98) and ME were DOS Hacks they implement a lot of modern features of the x86 architecture. That is no simple feat. I think you're just writing the fact that they use DOS as the underlying system off as a reason why they couldn't possibly have engineered an operating system.
 

Work on NT predates the Win9x releases.  The reason typically given for not switching everything over to the NT code base immediately is that as far as resource requirements go, it was ahead of its time for the end-user-computer market.

Remember that pretty much everything in the Win16 code base that was grandfathered into Win9x was focused firstly on things like minimum size and maximum execution speed.  The entire Win16 programming model is essentially a result of that line of thinking.

NT was designed for cross-processor-architecture portability and robustness even in the face of buggy programs.  These are luxuries not shared by the mostly assembler (and as far as the Win16 parts go, cooperative multitasking) 9x code base.

Given the technology of the day, NT could be ruled out on a typical home computer.  (For example, the suggested NT 3.51 requirements are roughly double the Win95 requirements.)

[Warrior]

Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

That still doesn't mean they're the one stop place for talent in the world on operating systems. Ruling out Microsoft "just because" sounds silly.

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

They didn't do it themselves, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that they worked with IBM to achieve this common goal (OS/2) then they forked when their views differed.

[nslay]

Yea..because all of the talent in OS Development is strictly at IBM right...

Probably...yeah, them and DEC probably had most of the talent.  IBM is notable for creating secure mainframe operating systems (e.g. like MVS, OS390, z/OS, etc...)

That still doesn't mean they're the one stop place for talent in the world on operating systems. Ruling out Microsoft "just because" sounds silly.

I'm ruling out Microsoft because it was then a twobit startup while IBM was the #1 and largest computer corporation in the world and DEC a pioneer in OS design and innovation.  Yes, this is so silly indeed.  It's more likely the "talent" is on board with IBM and DEC than it is for them to be on board with Microsoft, if not for their titles, at least by the shere size!

Given that we don't know actual numbers, its possible.  But operating systems cost a lot to develop ... IBM had the resources to do it.  They also most certainly had the people too.  What I will say about IBM is that it was traditionally a hardware and mainframe company.  Many of the higher-ups did not take the PC seriously at first.  It jumped on the band wagon a little too late.  My father often tells me that IBM didn't have the balls to pit OS/2 against Microsoft later on ... which confuses me since Microsoft was a small insect to IBM at the time.  Additionally, Microsoft has the tendency to keep pushing products...even if they fail at first.  When IBM starts failing, they immediately pull out.  It really is a pitty that IBM sucks now.

They didn't do it themselves, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that they worked with IBM to achieve this common goal (OS/2) then they forked when their views differed.

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

[MyndFyre]

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

It's funny you say this as I just read this article by one of the chief Windows developers:

Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM.

Hmmmmm....

[nslay]

Sure.  But its more believable that IBM played the more significant role, not Microsoft.

It's funny you say this as I just read this article by one of the chief Windows developers:

Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM.

Hmmmmm....

So what if IBM wanted a new API for OS/2?  Windows 1.0 was a program that ran on DOS, its success selling Windows 1.0 does not suggest anything about Microsoft's involvement with OS/2 development.  And I'd like to remark, in light of Unix, the kernel and GUI are not related.
Again, and again and again, operating systems are not cheap to develop, IBM had the resources and the people to do it.  Microsoft was relatively a new player...its not likely they could have funded the development of a system as advanced as OS/2 or NT by themselves.  Based on their track record, it does not seem they were even capable of writing a full blown OS ... they bought QDOS and a license to AT&T UNIX, maybe this doesn't prove they couldn't write a DOS or UNIX, but it seems to act as evidence against them.  Seeing as IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems (many of which still run today, some haven't even rebooted since the '80s and '90s), it seems more likely they would have designed and implemented most of OS/2.

Not to offend, and only as constructive criticism, but you and Warrior are among the most narrow minded people I've ever seen. Not to involve Skywing, but in many years talking with Skywing, an advocate of Microsoft technologies, and an avid Windows developer, not even he behaves or talks like either of you.  One difference lay in the fact that he's actually used and developed for other operating systems, including Linux ... when he remarks anything about another OS (particularly Linux), it isn't pure FUD.  You simply cannot accept that, at one time, Microsoft was not the greatest computer corporation ever and you especially cannot accept, in spite of many very practical points, that IBM may have largely been responsible for NT.  I've remarked again and again that, in the absense of numbers, its possible that Microsoft could have developed OS/2 largely, but in light of these points

• IBM was involved
• IBM was then the #1 and largest computer corporation in the world
• IBM had already written sophisticated and secure mainframe operating systems
• Microsoft was a startup
• Microsoft bought QDOS
• Microsoft purchased AT&T UNIX license
• Microsoft had never actually produced its own OS before
• And the very fact that operating system development is EXPENSIVE...especially something SOPHISTICATED

It's not a favorable possibility...
We keep having this circular discussion, in which I continually give you the same answer each time.  Why are the above points so hard to accept?  What makes you believe Microsoft was always some sort of world-class sophisticated computer corporation instead of, at one time, a startup with some excellent entrepeneurship?  And finally, what do you care if IBM was largely responsible for OS/2 and NT?  It shouldn't be hard to suggest that NT was derived from OS/2, considering Windows NT and 2000 both offered OS/2 API, support for HPFS, and many other things reminiscent to OS/2.
In all seriousness, and unrelated to our discussion, perhaps you both should be more open minded to other technologies and aware of their advantages and disadvantages.  You both look like absolute fools, synanomous to those old men who only buy Ford because its American, or whatever...
And what now?  Are we going to play quote wars?

[MyndFyre]

You accuse me of being narrow-minded, and yet you yourself have said that you're repeatedly giving me the same answer every time?

You also haven't brought in any numbers that demonstrate the involvement of Microsoft or IBM.  I've only seen speculation and what could be considered, at best, circumstantial evidence.

If one person can put together an operating system kernel (Linux), it's certainly feasible that a team of ten can put together a 400-function API around an abstracted kernel (Windows 1.0 debuted with an API of about 400 functions).  Software I've written by myself has an API that is much larger.  Bringing people in with expertise in the field of OS development seems even more to bolster this.  In 1980, Microsoft had 40 employees.  By the end of 1980, it had 128.

Are you honestly going to tell me that there aren't enough people to make such a modest debut OS?

[nslay]

You accuse me of being narrow-minded, and yet you yourself have said that you're repeatedly giving me the same answer every time?

You also haven't brought in any numbers that demonstrate the involvement of Microsoft or IBM.  I've only seen speculation and what could be considered, at best, circumstantial evidence.

If one person can put together an operating system kernel (Linux), it's certainly feasible that a team of ten can put together a 400-function API around an abstracted kernel (Windows 1.0 debuted with an API of about 400 functions).  Software I've written by myself has an API that is much larger.  Bringing people in with expertise in the field of OS development seems even more to bolster this.  In 1980, Microsoft had 40 employees.  By the end of 1980, it had 128.

Are you honestly going to tell me that there aren't enough people to make such a modest debut OS?

There are no numbers as I have already noted on many many occassions.  40-128 developers is a joke.  I grew up in Boca Raton where IBM hosted 10000 software engineers alone (that has changed in 1992-3 due to Florida politics).  It was a monstrous complex...it even had its own park for baseball, picnics, etc...  My father has often noted that there was a team of 300 working on OS/2 in Boca.
Unix is a simple system to clone...albeit far more sophisticated than DOS.  Why do you think nobody has cloned, for example, VMS, Twenex, etc?  It's amazing there is even Windows clone in the works, ReactOS.  You cite a bad example since Linus was assisted by an army of programmers very early on (even in the late 80s), a better example would be Andrew S Tannebaum, who wrote Minix, a Unix clone for educational purposes.  But then, that just furthers my point that Microsoft didn't have the staff or knowhow to write an OS ... thats why they purchased QDOS and a license to AT&T UNIX and then later brought DEC OS developers on board.  Minix however was very simple, it could run off of a 5 1/4 floppy while, as Skywing has mentioned, NT required some insane amount of hardware.  Compare that to OS/2 or NT which had a lot of functionality and features, a GUI desktop, ability to multitask, etc, etc...these are most certainly not modest systems and they were more sophisticated than Linux and Minix at the time.  Perhaps Microsoft developed the GUI?  Again, I do not believe Microsoft possessed the resources to develop OS/2 / NT by itself...perhaps this is why they partnered with IBM in the first place?  If they had 40-128 developers, and IBM 300...who do you think is going to produce more?  Keeping in mind, thats 300 employees in the Boca Raton branch alone ... what about other locations?

And yes you are often narrow minded...try to be more open minded.  I used to be a BSD zealot...well, at least I try not to be.  OS zealotry is never a good thing.