See, I'm a big Microsoft fan. I use all of their software, and hardware, that I can, and have supported them the whole way. I was thinking of the way I use Windows, and wondered what would happen if Windows was totally re-built, from the ground up, with a new way it runs, new look, new everything.

Then it dawned on me. Apple was smart enough to do this with OSX. They didn't "base" OSX off of any other previous MacOS, and they basically said, "You want compatibility with OS9 programs? Run it in "classic" mode, which is really just OS9.". Unlike Microsoft, who, sometimes feels like they keep shoehorning features on previous kernels, and "rebuilding" there operating systems, but still including the previous kernels. Why? Strictly for "compatibility".

So, while, OSes like Windows XP, and Windows Codename Longhorn, are nice, I really think that there holding back on what a real OS could do, just because of "compatibility" for older programs. Apple made a big move, completely dumping there old kernel, and jumping to Unix, and I commend them for that. :D :geek:

But isn't that exactly what Microsoft did with NT?

MM, I work for a large software company, and I can tell you that compatibility is an extremely important issue for most customers. I think the main reason Apple was finally able to cut away from its old OS 9 and go to OS X (pronounced "ten," not "ecks") was because they had lost so much of the corporate customer base. From an economical standpoint, many companies would rather go with a compatible product that's not as good, than a better product that is not compatible with its other applications.

Originally posted by Bill Catherall
But isn't that exactly what Microsoft did with NT?

Actally, yes, and no. See, Windows 95 at the time, the "home user" operation system, had a really messed up version of the NT kernel, which was done on purpose. So, in essence, Win95/98/ME was a "sripped down" version of NT. Also, don't forget WinNT3.5, was Win31 with a new style 32 bit kernal. So, Microsoft started with Win1, Win2 was based of of Win1, Win3 was based off of Win2, and Win3.1 was a point upgrade for Win3. Then WinNT35 was a upgrade to the 16 bit kernal, adding 32 bit support. Later, WinNT4 was, basiclly, Win35 with the new GUI. Win95/98/ME was a stripped down version of WinNT. 2000 was based off of WinNT, with some of the key Win9X code added in. WinXP is Win2000, with more of that Win9X support. Heck, I can get a Win1 program to run on XP. We've been building off of Win1 ever since. :) :geek:

Originally posted by Lani
From an economical standpoint, many companies would rather go with a compatible product that's not as good, than a better product that is not compatible with its other applications.

Still, Apple took the jump. Microsoft has never really made any "jump" at all. :)

MM, your knowledge of Microsoft history amazes me! A lot of this stuff had to have been before your time!! How old were you when you got your first computer?

Originally posted by Leap for Joy
MM, your knowledge of Microsoft history amazes me! A lot of this stuff had to have been before your time!! How old were you when you got your first computer?

OK, here's the history of my computing:

I had always been interested in computers. I had used many Macs at school, and I *thought* I knew a lot at 5. Well, soon, at a Yard Sale, someone gave me a Tandy 1000, an 8086 with MS-DOS 1.2, 640K of ram, and no hard drive. I had no clue, what DOS was, or how it worked. So, I headed down to the local library, where I now work, and got some books on DOS. Soon, I was a DOS expert. In 2nd grade, I joined the G.A.T.E. program, at our school district. Well, not only did I have a blast, but I got, in my book, my first "real" computer. It was a IBM PS2/200. It was one of those computers, that was a blunt ripoff of the Mac Classic. It had the monitor built into the computer. It was an 286SX, with 1 MB of RAM, a 10MB hard drive, and ran Windows 3.1. After mastering Windows 3.1, I met the Branch Manager, at the local library. Well, she had an old IBM PS2/600, a 386 with 4MB of RAM, that, after we really became friends, she gave to me. Also, the Library was my first experience online, at this time, around late 1996, when the Branch Manager let me on the staff Internet computer. Well, after mastering my little 386, I met a strange teen at the library. He had an older Pentium 133 that he wanted me to "fix". After fixing the problem he had, he insisted that I keep the computer, for just a little longer. I never saw him again. Now, with this, new to me, computer, I mastered Windows 95. I hacked the registry, and went through over 100+ installs of Win95. Soon, that same Branch Manager, at the library, gave me a copy of Windows 98. I was highly disappointed in Windows 98, as it was just 95 with IE4's "Desktop Update" added. Then, I signed up for NetZero, and had my first home experience online, for free. Well, I had this computer for about 2 years. Until the motherboard blew. I decided to get a new one at a local computer store, and paid about $100 for it. Now, about 2 years later, when I turned 14, that same Branch Manager wanted me to work for her, at the library. Well, I took the job, which I still hold today. After working for a month, I bought a eMachines 733i. It's a nice Celeron 733, with 64MB (later upgraded to 128MB) of RAM, a 20GB hard drive, and a jazzy case. It cost me about $300. Now, at the time, this computer had Windows ME, which I loved. The Automatic Updates, and the Win2K look, I really liked. Soon, I applied for the Windows XP beta. I didn't think I'd get accepted, being a 15 year old kid, but I did. I was so excited, even after the beta, that I was at Best Buy, at 10:00 to pick up my pre-orded copy of Windows XP. Well, about a year later, I picked up yet another eMachines, my current computer. It's a Celeron 1.6Ghz, with a 40GB hard drive, 128 MB of ram (upgraded to 256), and Windows XP. About 4 months ago, I bought a Compaq laptop, 1.8 Celeron, 256MB of ram, 40 GB hard drive, XP SP1.

As you can see, for the last 11 years, I've "steeped" through computers, giving me the knowledge that I know now. I gained my Microsoft knowledge, thanks to books, and tried out new things, I really got interested in NT's past, when I was beta testing XP.

As you can see, the Library really fueled my computer knowledge, and really made who I am. ;) :geek:

Hey MM -- just a friendly suggestion (and not as a moderator) -- it will make it much easier for everyone if you hit the Return key every so often and broke up your paragraphs into digestible portions. This is especially true when you talk about tech things. People's eyes tend to start glazing over, and they will skip most of what you wrote. Believe me, I write software manuals for a living so I can tell you that your looooong paragraphs are hard to follow.

[and while I'm at it, since you mention it so often, it's kernel, not kernal. Think like a "kernel of corn." :D]

Originally posted by MonorailMan
Still, Apple took the jump. Microsoft has never really made any "jump" at all. :) ...which may explain why so many large companies don't bother with Windows for their critical application environments.

Originally posted by Lani
Hey MM -- just a friendly suggestion (and not as a moderator) -- it will make it much easier for everyone if you hit the Return key every so often and broke up your paragraphs into digestible portions.

<SNIP>

[and while I'm at it, since you mention it so often, it's kernel, not kernal. Think like a "kernel of corn." :D]

I knew that. :rolleyes:

Also, I have a bad habit of typing like I talk. I just dump it all out, without any consent for the reader. :eek:

Originally posted by MonorailMan
It was a IBM PS2/200. It was one f those computers, that was a blunt ripoff of the Mac Classic. It had the monitor built into the computer.

Cool history, but you are showing your age a bit with the indication that having a built-in monitor made a computer a rip-off of the early Macs. :)

The first computer that I worked with extensively was the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III, an all-in-one unit that pre-dated the Mac by about 4 years. Even before that, the TRS-80 Model II and the early Commodore PET and CBM computers also had built-in monitors. There were other early microcomputers that also had a similar design.

If anything, the first Mac's design was kind of retro...

-Jeff

Originally posted by JeffG
Cool history, but you are showing your age a bit with the indication that having a built-in monitor made a computer a rip-off of the early Macs. :)Well hey, don't be too harsh on the kid. At about the time he was born, I was using Aldus PageMaker 1.something on a Mac Plus printing onto a LaserWriter and doing cartwheels because I no longer had to do all the publishing layouts using galleys and hot wax.

Ok, now I feel really really old, Lani. Thanks a lot...

Doc had been using his Mac for two years by the time MM was born...

Adrienne

I still believe that the reason it is so difficult for me to write papers is that I had to hand-write them or use a typewriter when I was in high school...

I still cannot use Mac X... it just is very confusing and not very user friendly. I've had more crashes with it than with Windows ME

Mr. F, after you use Windows for so long, you get this "Computer" mindset. You have to throw all of that out the window, when you start using OS X. :)

Maybe I'll just have to get used to it. A lot of the computers at school run Mac X