JRHERITA LordVile said: Ironic considering the amount Microsoft stole from Apple And Apple likewise stole from Xenon PARC Reply
hotaru251 by asserting that further high-quality hobby software development would only be attractive if more users paid. meanwhile its unpaid people fixing the software they make since the people paid to do so won't. Reply
JarredWaltonGPU LordVile said: Ironic considering the amount Microsoft stole from Apple This is completely wrong. What Gates was complaining about was a 100% copy of a product his company had created. What happened with Windows and MacOS was that both were inspired by the Xerox PARC prototype GUI / OS, which Xerox didn't really do anything with. Then Apple cloned the idea — not a copy of the software, but the creation of NEW software that worked in a similar fashion. And then Microsoft took a similar approach and cloned what both Apple and Xerox had done. Given that MacOS ("System Software" at the time) was at the time written for Motorola 68000 series processors, and Windows was written for Intel x86 processors, there could be no direct copying. And let's also be clear that Apple did create a lot of its own new ideas with the final shipping OS — Xerox PARC mostly had a prototype without being a full OS, AFAIK. There's a lot of debate about what influence the various OS efforts back in the late 70s and early 80s. Windows 1.0 was announced before the first Macintosh was released, but after Lisa. But even then, there were other efforts to make "windowing" operating systems before Lisa came out, like VisionCorp's Visi On, first shown at COMDEX in 1982. So, we have Xerox PARC in 1979 that went basically nowhere, but Jobs saw it demonstrated. Gates hired Charles Simonyi, who had worked for Xerox PARC, and thus knew far more about the GUI work there than Gates. Other companies were toying with GUI concepts in a variety of forms, some of which shipped. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that in the early 80s, the idea of moving away from pure text to something closer looking to the final output was obvious. How to get there differed, but no one thought, "Oh, pure ASCII text is all we'll ever need…" Even games were already moving beyond pure text, so why wouldn't other applications? What was missing was the computational power and hardware to make it viable, and that would change in the coming years. Reply
LordVile JRHERITA said: And Apple likewise stole from Xenon PARC I mean Apple actually paid for it. It was part of a deal that allowed them to access and use what they found at PARC for Xerox buying shares in Apple before the IPO. Reply
LordVile JarredWaltonGPU said: This is completely wrong. What Gates was complaining about was a 100% copy of a product his company had created. What happened with Windows and MacOS was that both were inspired by the Xerox PARC prototype GUI / OS, which Xerox didn't really do anything with. Then Apple cloned the idea — not a copy of the software, but the creation of NEW software that worked in a similar fashion. And then Microsoft took a similar approach and cloned what both Apple and Xerox had done. Given that MacOS ("System Software" at the time) was at the time written for Motorola 68000 series processors, and Windows was written for Intel x86 processors, there could be no direct copying. And let's also be clear that Apple did create a lot of its own new ideas with the final shipping OS — Xerox PARC mostly had a prototype without being a full OS, AFAIK. There's a lot of debate about what influence the various OS efforts back in the late 70s and early 80s. Windows 1.0 was announced before the first Macintosh was released, but after Lisa. But even then, there were other efforts to make "windowing" operating systems before Lisa came out, like VisionCorp's Visi On, first shown at COMDEX in 1982. So, we have Xerox PARC in 1979 that went basically nowhere, but Jobs saw it demonstrated. Gates hired Charles Simonyi, who had worked for Xerox PARC, and thus knew far more about the GUI work there than Gates. Other companies were toying with GUI concepts in a variety of forms, some of which shipped. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that in the early 80s, the idea of moving away from pure text to something closer looking to the final output was obvious. How to get there differed, but no one thought, "Oh, pure ASCII text is all we'll ever need…" Even games were already moving beyond pure text, so why wouldn't other applications? What was missing was the computational power and hardware to make it viable, and that would change in the coming years. I mean you’re completely ignoring the licensing agreement Apple has with Microsoft and Apple effectively paying Xerox for access to and use of what was at PARC Reply
Gururu Why didn't Xerox sue Microsoft? Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/software/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/software/most-of-you-steal-your-software-bill-gates-complained-about-software-piracy-50-years-ago-and-was-openly-irked-by-communitys-altair-basic-theft#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- ‘Largest Infrastructure Buildout in Human History’: Jensen Huang on AI’s ‘Five-Layer Cake’ at Davos
- Valve delays Steam Machine and says it is reconsidering pricing — critical component shortage and costs behind the move
- Western Digital reveals new software platform to manage hundreds of petabytes of storage — as-yet-unnamed tool gives users powerful management capabilities at t
- Gamer scores Nvidia’s $999 powerhouse RTX 5080 for a jaw-dropping $562 — the Walmart clearance aisle is the secret weapon to beat the AI-driven GPU shortage (Up
- Intel clawed back CPU market share from AMD in the Steam Hardware survey for the first time in months — PC component crisis could be pushing builders to value-f
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.