Microsoft vs The Free World

[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.