(WinBlows) Ha ha, Vista's just an OSX ripoff

C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
something Apple developed for OS X?

The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.


--
http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

"Steve Gary" <> wrote in message
news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> something Apple developed for OS X?
>
> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
>
>
> --
> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov


Like Apple has ever had an original idea?

Just ask Xerox

"Tom Scales" <> wrote:

>
> Like Apple has ever had an original idea?
>
> Just ask Xerox

but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
in mind.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tom Scales <> wrote:
>
> "Steve Gary" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns988D5A7E4D80332ju44k2j3k@217.22.228.20...
>> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
>> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
>> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
>> something Apple developed for OS X?
>>
>> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
>> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
>> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov
>
>
> Like Apple has ever had an original idea?
>
> Just ask Xerox
>
>

This is an old and stupid argument, particularly for those of us who
actually remember those days.




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

Steve Gary wrote:
> C'mon, did they really expect that no one would notice that EVERY SINGLE
> ONE of the major feature upgrades - aside from the virus/spyware/security
> make-goods which are irrelevant to Mac OS - is a renamed version of
> something Apple developed for OS X?

Even funnier, most of these features have been a standard part of Linux
since long before OS/X came out. Sure, XGL is a better handling of 3D
OpenGL, but Linux has had OpenGL support since the mid 1990s, when SGI
contributed their technology to Linux (most of it was actually
developed as part of government contracts). In fact, for a while, it
looked like VRML might be a really popular modelling language (VRML was
a "shell" interpreter that converted scripts to OpenGL calls).

> The funniest thing would be if the Rip Off Apple strategy backfired this
> time around, and just made people switch to OS X... the playing field is a
> lot different now than it was the last time the Microsoft crooks tried it.

It looks like it's been an even bigger back-fire. Microsoft has had to
sign a deal with Novell, and make Linux part of their OEM offering in
order to meet the demands of users who now insist on the capabilities
of *nix along with *dows.

Microsoft could still find itself facing lawsuits, or could end up
offering similar contracts to other Linux distributors. Microsoft
would offer Linux/Windows images to OEMs far an additional price - a
small portion of the additional price going to Novell or the other
distributors.

> --
> http://homepage.mac.com/vito/real_vista_episode_1.mov

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <> wrote:
>
>>
>> Like Apple has ever had an original idea?
>>
>> Just ask Xerox
>
> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
> in mind.

While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product. Darwin
is largely derived from FreeBSD, and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
KHTML. Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
shopping around in 2003 (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets). Of course
even those had precedents. Very little in computers is really "new".

Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
since 2003) and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:23:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> "Tom Scales" <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Like Apple has ever had an original idea?
>>>
>>> Just ask Xerox
>>
>> but apple didn't "copy" anything from xerox -- so you need to keep that
>> in mind.
>
> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product. Darwin
> is largely derived from FreeBSD,

No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
NeXTStep was.

> and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
> KHTML. Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
> shopping around in 2003

And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...

> (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets). Of course
> even those had precedents. Very little in computers is really "new".
>

Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
> since 2003)

Which IBM invented almost congruently with SGI as jfs and xfs modules,
respectively, and Veritas implemented for the rest of the Unices and even
windows years before microsoft thought to copy it.

> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.

Another ****ing lie. Christ, eric.




-----yttrx



--
http://www.yttrx.net

In article <u4jch.3252$>, yttrx
<> wrote:

> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?

MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."

WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:53:30 GMT, yttrx wrote:

>> While there is some argument as to whether or not apple licensed technology
>> from Xerox, there's no doubt that OSX is not an original product. Darwin
>> is largely derived from FreeBSD,
>
> No, its largely derived from NeXTStep, and somewhat derived from BSD, as
> NeXTStep was.

Yes, but Darwin was derived from FreeBSD rather than the official UCB BSD
that NeXTStep was.

>> and Safari/Webkit is largely derived from
>> KHTML. Other features, like Dashboard are copies of ideas Microsoft was
>> shopping around in 2003
>
> And the unix world had in the form of karamba toys in 2001...

Karamba came around about the same time, yes... which is even further
evidence that Apple did not invent this.

>> (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y for an
>> early 2003 preview video that shows the sidebar with widgets). Of course
>> even those had precedents. Very little in computers is really "new".
>
> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.

As does everyone else.

>> Also, don't forget that things like "time machine" in Leopard are (albeitly
>> better implemented) copies of Windows Volume Shadow Copies (been around
>> since 2003)
>
> Which IBM invented almost congruently with SGI as jfs and xfs modules,
> respectively, and Veritas implemented for the rest of the Unices and even
> windows years before microsoft thought to copy it.

Not the same thing at all. Veritas and SGI and such could access backups
that had been done previously, not be able to go back to snapshots of the
filesystem at any time.

>> and Spotlight was also copied from early versions of Longhorn.
>
> Another ****ing lie. Christ, eric.

We were even talking about it here in 2003

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....&lnk=ol&hl=en&

That's a year before Spotlight shipped in the form of OSX 10.4

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:08:41 -0600, DB wrote:

> In article <u4jch.3252$>, yttrx
> <> wrote:
>
>> Nothing at microsoft is really new, they copy EVERYTHING.
>
> Let's sum up the arguments, shall we?
>
> MAC: "There's ample documentation to prove that much of the Windows
> interface has been copied from the Mac OS, for decades."
>
> WINDOWS: "Oh yeah? Well... well... well... YOU SUCK, DUDE!"

No.

MAC: You copied us. We invented everything

Windows: That's the pot calling the kettle black

MAC: But we invented the "flower power" iMac

Windows: No contest there.