Update: Microsoft has issued some sort of "clarification" - you can read its incredible denial of the obvious under this story below...
We reckon a lot of Mac users will be dashing across to read PCR’s interview with Microsoft’s partner group manager, Simon Aldous, today, if only to look in black and white at his admission that Windows 7 was “inspired” by Apple’s Mac OS X.
As readers hear the faint strains of ‘Follow the Leader”, here’s a few samples of what he said:
“One of the things that people say an awful lot about the Apple Mac is that the OS is fantastic, that it’s very graphical and easy to use. What we’ve tried to do with Windows 7 – whether it’s traditional format or in a touch format – is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics,” he said.
“We’ve significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it’s built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance.” (Oh yeah?).
Create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics?
Where did we hear that before?
And isn’t that what everybody knew already?
Perhaps that’s why Windows XP users should consider switching to a Mac.
Here's Microsoft's 'denial':
An inaccurate quote has been floating around the Internet today about the design origins of Windows 7 and whether its look and feel was “borrowed” from Mac OS X. Unfortunately this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7. I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
They failed
They failed
...miserably, I might add!
...miserably, I might add!
If having Windows installed
If having Windows installed on 90+% of computers worldwide is a business failure I want to fail like that!
The Main Reason
the main reason 90% of computers around the world are running windows is because the world is bigger then the United States, Japan, UK.
Most of the countries that make up the 90% of windows users are either behind on technology 10 years running older computers or impoverished and owning a mac isn't necessary for their needs. And given that 10 years ago apple was a dead company. It makes sense. So essentially windows dominates because they still have a monopoly in other countries
also not to mention that its hard for people who aren't tech savvy to run OS X on a computer that isn't made by apple. Which these other countries the people can't afford.
Although it is a microsoft success...there is still fail present :P
Hey ding-dong! MSFT has over
Hey ding-dong! MSFT has over 92% share in the USA!
Windows works for businesses because they are tied to one hardware manufacture and have a software product that is understood by 100% of the work force.
Face it, once MSFT stops making Office for Mac, Mac sales will suffer.
Business don't like to pay top dollar for a widget that does the same thing as a widget that costs a third of the price.
I use Macs all the time, they are a great product. MSFT is smart to copy Apple. Apple spends the time and money to invent items that MSFT can sit back, wait to see if they will sell. If they sell MSFT can make a similar product cheaper and sell it to a user base of 90 something percent of the population.
You said it - they use it
You said it - they use it because it is what they know! It may be crap, but it's SO popular!
If they'd use Apple products, they'd know them. They would then recognize that an integrated system is more reliable than a $300 system that even the manufacturer can't tell you for sure what you have. If they knew something else, they might realize they are paying hundreds of dollars for the crap know as Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Unfortunately, these have become a defacto business standard due to Microsoft's anti-competitve behavior of "give it away, kill the competition, then stick it to them." I've benn stuck for 14 years with Office.
Use openoffice....
Use openoffice....
I use it at home! :>) I wish
I use it at home! :>)
I wish more companies would use it and give MS a taste of their own medicine - trying to compete with a free product.
WRONG
born in Montreal, living in Monterrey Mexico now, here, at a big, big company, nobody uses a Mac for business. It's not compliant because the IT people say Mac's are way more vulnerable than Microsoft Windows. There's also the thing that most commercial software is Windows compatible or mostly, runs just under Windows, nor under OS X. For a big company like this one, buying computers isn't a thing and this city yes, is not a first world one, but let me tell you that I was BIG surprised when I got here and saw the economical potential this city has: CEMEX, ALFA, ITESM, CERVECERIA CUAUHTEMOC, etc., lot of big industries run here and them all are under MS Win for desktop obviously; they might go Sun Solaris, IBM, Unix, WebLogic, TIBCO, etc., lot of diff non MS but for the desktop they prefer to go MS than Mac. And yes, Mac's are great, "stable" and nice, but working on them is something that no many people do, and its software is pretty limited compared to Microsoft's suite and all the third party windows only software around
The reason why 90% (or
The reason why 90% (or whatever) of the world is running Windows instead of Mac is because MAC'S ARE CRASSLY OVERPRICED!
Who's overpriced?
Snow Leopard Mac OS 10.6 - $34.99 CDN at BestBuy, Windows 7 - $129.99 or $249.99 CDN at BestBuy.
Entry level desktop - Mac Mini - $649.00 MacBook laptop 1099.00. i Work (which is the equivalent of MS Office only better) $99.00,
Microsoft Office - $149.95 - 899.00. Yikes. I don't the cost argument stands up any longer and once you factor in the cost of
antivirus software etc. you are either even or paying more for the mediocrity of Windows.
Not really
Its because the Mac is seen as counter culture within the Windows dominant culture. People who consider themselves drawn outside the mainstream and generally with a little more discriminating taste and often more affluent choose Mac. If Mac were to gain the Windows market position, then those same people would probably look for something else to differentiate themselves.... Thus, Mac people will never be the dominant culture, and the Mac never the sales leader IMO, and I for one am happy for that!
Differentiation like with the
Differentiation like with the iPod? Let's face it, lots of people buy Apple stuff because it's pretty and because they saw lots of ads about it, simple as that -- they don't really care about the spec or what OS it runs.
Differentiation like with the
Differentiation like with the iPod? Let's face it, lots of people buy Apple stuff because it's pretty and because they saw lots of ads about it, simple as that -- they don't really care about the spec or what OS it runs.
They run a great half-assed
They run a great half-assed business, selling lots and lots of third-rate products. If that makes you feel good, then yes Microsoft is wonderful. They bring in the green.
Of course ultimately it matters whether you care how you make your money. If you're happy with high volume, low margin, low quality, low support, low service, than great!
Love MSFT or hate them. But,
Love MSFT or hate them. But, remember that Apple wanted to be MSFT and lost.
Apple has found a nice little niche market, good. Apple may make the Lamborghini of the computer world but Microsoft makes the Ford. It may not be as fancy, it may have some issues, but it works and is cheap.
As someone else mentioned the vast vast vast majority of people have no clue about Vista, Win7, OS X and dont want to know. That is how MSFT operates.
My case in point is this. Apple has to make its computers run MSFT OS via Boot Camp (or 3rd party). Microsoft sure doesn't need to worry about making its OS run Mac OS X (even if it could).
For instance I have to run XP on both my MacBook and iMac because Quicken doesn't make a good Mac product and I need IE. If MSFT made IE for OS X I would forgo Quicken but I need IE to access very secure work websites that are not compatible with Safari or Firefox.
When vendors make products to sell they want to make that product work with the largest group of potential customers. 90% or more is a very huge group to sell to.
Whats cheaper?
Snow Leopard Mac OS 10.6 - $34.99 CDN at BestBuy, Windows 7 - $129.99 or $249.99 CDN at BestBuy.
Entry level desktop - Mac Mini - $649.00 MacBook laptop 1099.00. i Work (which is the equivalent of MS Office only better) $99.00,
Microsoft Office - $149.95 - 899.00. Yikes. I don't the cost argument stands up any longer and once you factor in the cost of
antivirus software etc. you are either even or paying more for the mediocrity of Windows.
There is not antivirus
There is not antivirus software cost with Security Esentials... it's as good as Norton Anti Virus
Inspired ? They've ripped
Inspired ? They've ripped Apple off for the lst 20 years. Scumgab company!
Yeah just like Apple ripped
Yeah just like Apple ripped off Xerox, tard.
Apple PAID Zerox (in cash and
Apple PAID Zerox (in cash and Apple stock) to use technology that they were not going to pursue. Apple then refined the technology and used it as a springboard for the Mac. Microsoft paid NO ONE. They just stole it... Check your facts dude.
Guess who wrote most of the
Guess who wrote most of the software for the original MacIntosh? Yep, Microsoft!
Apple was full aware that they were developing a graphical interface for the PC at the time. MS had an agreement with Apple that they would not release it until a year after introduction of the MacIntosh. MS then stole Apple's thunder by announcing Windows in the fall of '83 - several months before the Apple announcement of the MacIntosh! Supposedly Jobs screamed at Gates, "You f***** me!" and Gate's responded, "You are like a burglar breaking in a house to steal the TV - only to find I beat you to it." He was referring to the Apple - Xerox relationship. Apple paid next to nothing to Xerox, who did develop the GUI concept of "windows."
Apple later sued Microsoft unsuccessfully in the "look and feel" case as noted in the article. Xerox sued Apple over the same issue, but also unsuccessfully. The courts basically decided no one could patent the concept of the graphical interface.
Just reporting history here. Both companies were cutthroat when there were billions of dollars involved - 80's style!
Yeah MS was the main
Yeah MS was the main developer of applications for the Mac OS. So what? MS still ripped off the Mac GUI concept and paid no one.
Xerox made a butt load of cash on Apple stock for technology that they were not going to use anyway. Apple hired many of the original Xerox engineers so they could continue their work. The brass at Xerox did not understand what they had. Apple knew it had awesome potential. At least Apple approached Xerox and made a deal with them to base the Mac OS on their early research.
Apple had an agreement with MS that they would write APPLICATIONS for the Mac, not rip off their entire OS. When Jobs heard rumors that MS was developing their own GUI OS, they lied. MS dragged their feet on the development of the applications to buy more time to copy the Mac OS.
Xerox did not make money off
Xerox did not make money off of the Macintosh. Apple did not license from them. They attempted to sue Apple, and lost. You don't bite the hand that makes you a "butt load" do you? This is in the referenced article. And Jobs most certainly knew about Windows. They had an agreement that it would be released a year after the MacIntosh. Gates found a crack in the agreement and only anounced the plans earlier. Xerox definitely did not recognize the potential. Apple hired the Xerox people, but they were no longer making money for Xerox. They took their knowledge to Apple. Xerox did not take action until years later - too late. Also, at the time, Windows was a sharper looking interface. Windows was far more stable when PCs were "IBM compatibles." There weren't a lot of technical reasons to choose one or the other system. Apple just lost out, and Windows & IBM dominated. Before OS X, I hated using a Mac, though that may be lack of familiarity. After learning OS X was a unix variant, I tried them again. I will never buy a Windows machine again. If we want to be honest, Silicon Graphics had a super slick unix interface before Apple did. Windows 95 was more a copy of SGI's Irix! Apple too learned a lot from SGI and Sun. I was so glad when I found OS X to be on that same level of technical slickness and ease of use. Window went to crap when they became a monopoly and decided fixing problems wouldn't make more money. Don't anyone think I am a fan of MS!
Well, not being in the room
Well, not being in the room at the time, I can only go by the various books on the subject that I've read. I recall reading that Xerox DID make a lot of money on Apple stock at the time. Granted they didn't profit as much as they should have. Xerox only decided to sue later much after they realized the true potential of their work. Their technology was worth far more than they originally realized. Of course Xerox did not make money after their employees moved on to work at Apple, how could they. I read that most (but not all) of the engineers were happy to continue their work at Apple because Xerox just didn't get it and Apple did.
My point is that Apple did NOT steal Xerox's technology. They made an agreement with Xerox. It was an agreement that Xerox later regretted, but at least Apple did things above board. MS did NOT. They just stole it. They did not compensate Xerox or anyone else for that matter.
I don't know where you heard that Apple knew that MS was developing their own GUI OS. I've never read that anywhere. I've only read that MS had rights to doing GUI work on their Apple apps only. I've also read that the agreement never indicate that it was specifically for apps only and not for an OS, which is why they were in court for so long. Apple legal screwed up.That said Steve was extremely arrogant back then so it is possible.
I think you mean Xerox was an
I think you mean Xerox was an investor in Apple stock and made money that way. Quite possibly, I don't know. I am pretty sure Apple did not GIVE them stock for the technology or pay them directly - that was my point. If Xerox cared at the time, they should have taken legal action when Apple hired all the employees that developed their technology. They apparently did not care, and let Apple do it.
I read the story of MS agreeing not sell Windows until a year after the MacIntosh in a book, of course. Also the alleged conversation with Jobs screaming at Gates.
Certainly the courts decided that Apple did NOT steal from Xerox, and MS did NOT steal from Apple. No doubt Xerox did develop the concept first, and the others copied from them!
I cannot think of a single real innovation that MS really has done. They didn't even write MS-DOS. They bought it for a small amount from another company. They copied Word from Wordperfect, Excel from Lotus123.
That said, at that TIME (late 80s-early 90s) Windows was a pretty good product, and an IBM compatible running Windows was definitely able to compete with Apple. Of course MS was partners with Big Blue (IBM) and that was formidible adversary for Apple. They were Apple's competition, not MS. Apple was a very smug company in the early 90s. They reminded me of GM, telling themselves how great they are while customers bought other peoples products. The game has changed a lot.
Apple did do some very innovative things that were not as well know outside of Apple users. Certainly they led the way with the first consumer GUI based computer with a mouse. Multimedia definitely appeared first in Apple machines, as well as USB. These later spread to the PC world. I never saw Windows running until 1988, although it existed. It didn't get popular until 4 years after the MacIntosh.
In the discussion of how Windows came to dominate, I think we are also forgetting that hardware was MUCH more expensive then than now. The hardware was much more of the driver than the software for at home use in the late 80s and early 90s. There were many companies making the IBM compatible hardware, and only one Apple. That was probably the biggest factor. Of course IBM lost control, and is no longer in the personal computer market at all.
I recall reading that Apple
I recall reading that Apple either gave Xerox Apple stock and/or some cash or at the very least gave them stock options in exchange for letting them into their GUI lab. This did translate into some big dollars into Xerox's coffers. Xerox tried to sue when they realized that they made a huge mistake, but it was too late. Xerox obviously had some incredibly talented people who really "got it". The problem was Xerox was too big to have a clue. The Xerox engineers for the most part were happy to move on to Apple who recognized the value of their work and was prepared to put some money behind it and let the engineers run with it. Clearly the GUI concept was the future. Clearly the concept was seeded at Xerox. Apple did not invent the GUI. They simply refined the concept for mass consumption.
I don't buy that Apple knew that MS was doing their own GUI OS to release it a year later. The movie The Pirates of Silicon Valley supports that. MS was given prototypes of the Mac before it was released so they could DEVELOP Mac applications. What MS really did was reverse engineer the Mac OS based on the early demo units. A really good documentary about all of this is Triumph of the Nerds. If you haven't seen it, it is definitely worth a watch. Another good book is Accidental Millionaires.
I'm not saying that Apple is squeaky clean, because they're not. I'm not saying that they're perfect, but they didn't break into Xerox's labs late at night and steal there stuff. It was a pre-arranged deal in exchange for cash and/or stock/stock options. Seriously... look it up. The big thing here was Apple understood what the Xerox engineers were doing while the Xerox brass did not. By the time they figured it out, it was too late. Apple saw a prime opportunity to give themselves a head start and pounced.
MS does what they always do, rip everyone else off. The reason that Windows is where it is, isn't because it is or was "better", it's because the hardware was dirt cheap and they just wanted to sell software. That translated into huge market penetration. Apple on the other hand had costly hardware. Partially because they wanted huge profits and partially because they used non-industry-standard parts that were very expensive. Remember how expensive good Mac compatible video cards used to be? They were outrageously expensive.
Apple does innovate and that does cost money. There are some really good smart phones in the marketplace now thanks to the iPhone. We'd still be using un-intuitive flip phones if not for Apple. Macs cost a little more up front, but in my opinion, they are better built and if you factor in the long-term factors involved, they are just as affordable as Windows PCs of not more so.
Interesting comments here.
Interesting comments here. Makes me question some things I've read.
Obviously, some of us have read different versions of events regarding the relationships between Xerox, Apple, and Microsoft. Several have said Apple did eventually pay something to Xerox now, so it must be in print somewhere. I've definitely read Xerox unsucessfully sued Apple, and the technology was never licensed. Why would they pay if they won the lawsuit? Always possible they did - possibly it was a settlement over other things as well.
As far as Jobs knowing, I am going by memory of what I read. I can't confirm the story, obviously. The drama of the story was that they had agreed not to RELEASE Windows until later, but ANNOUNCED it and trumped Apple's new secret OS. I know there were articles on MS Windows in Dec 83, which was before the release of the MacIntosh. There are copies of the BYTE magazine article on the web.That was definitely the end of the Apple -Microsoft relationship! Interestingly, the same article talks about Windows with a mouse. I definitely never heard the term "mouse" until Apple released the MacIntosh. I don't think I saw a mouse on a PC until 1988.
The Gates-Jobs relationship goes back so far. Even before this, back to the mid 70s. Pretty fascinating history.
I do agree with the comments about cheaper hardware popularizing Windows. Back in simple Windows 3.0 days, there was nothing wrong with it. I can't say it was better than the Mac OS at the time - I didn't use Macs in the 80s or 90s. I can say that Windows was not the stability and software maintenance nightmares it is now. It was very usable.
Someone else said Win95 was copy of OS8 or OS9. I thought Win95 very similar to SGI's Irix, though possibly Irix had "copied" from Apple. I heard comments that Irix was similar to the fell of a Mac. That was 1993. Irix was fantastic.
Look everyone ! A beggar who
Look everyone ! A beggar who cant afford a Mac has come here ! Lets give him 10 cents each !
"We’ve significantly improved
I hate to admit it, but yes... my osx has crashed more on me, than vista/7 lately :(
Post new comment