In an article regarding Palm’s decision to use Microsoft’s Windows Mobile 5.0 for their next Treo (see related article Palm goes to the dark side, next Treo to use Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0), Tech pundit Rob Enderle writes:
“It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly.” – Rob Enderle, September 26th, 2005
Let’s pause to let that one sink in… savor, bask, indulge… Okay, one more time:
“It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly.” – Rob Enderle, September 26th, 2005
Huh? Count us among the few that don’t remember a bit of that historical tidbit. We thought Apple’s Macintosh team designed and built the original Macintosh hardware and software: Bill Atkinson, Chris Espinosa, Joanna Hoffman, George Crow, Burrell Smith, Jerry Manock, Jef Raskin and Andy Hertzfeld. We searched all over, but cannot find anything about Microsoft writing the first Mac OS. Can you? About the only thing we can think of that Endere might mean is that Apple licensed Microsoft’s Applesoft Basic for the Apple II. Is that what he means? Or perhaps he means that Steve Jobs recruited Microsoft to be the first third party applications software developer for the Mac?
Some of the places we looked (and failed) to find out about how Microsoft wrote the first Mac OS under contract to Apple:
• kernelthread.com – The Macintosh
• Wikipedia – Mac OS
• Jef Raskin – Recollections of the Macintosh project
• MacKiDo – Early Mac OS
• Encyclopædia Britannica – Macintosh and the first affordable GUI
• Folklore.org: Andy Hertzfeld – The first time we demoed the Macintosh to Microsoft
• Folklore.org: Andy Hertzfeld – Steve Jobs confronts Bill Gates about copying the Mac
Enderle’s full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: So, are we among the few that don’t remember that “Microsoft wrote the first Mac OS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago” or has Enderle just taken his “Enderleness” to hitherto unknown level?
What a turd
Wow. What an idiot. I’ve read every book on Apple for the past 15 years and never found a single shred of evidence to support that. What an idiot.
If Tera were around she’d rip the guy. Thanks MDN for exposing such idiocy.
Bambi Hambi
Mac360
How could Microsoft have written the first MacOS “nearly two decades ago” when the first MacOS was written well before that (for Lisa) and at least by 1984.
MS developed some of the first apps available for the Macintosh.
Who is it that signs his checks? I need a job and know absolutley nothing of Apples’ history. Shoot me a line Rob. Seriously
Is this what is called revisionist history?
I think he meant when it comes to software developement…i could be wrong…
I think Enderle is probably thinking of AppleSoft BASIC, the floating point BASIC written by Microsoft for the Apple ][ and licensed by Apple in 1977.
How can anyone take analysis written by an analyst that doesn’t do his research?
I’m afraid there’s to be no end to Enderle’s moronity (I know it’s not a word but it just sounds so right for him).
MS did NOT write the original Mac OS. I don’t know where he pulled this tidbit from, but it’s probably better that way. I’ve read every book ever written about Apple and, no, it’s absolutely 100% not true. There isn’t even some slight connection that could be blown out of proportion to concoct such an idea. The original Mac OS was probably 90% finished before MS even knew it existed.
One could, however, argue that Apple wrote the first version of Windows ; )
Microsoft has NEVER even written their OWN operating system, having bought the first one (MS-DOS) and stolen the other (Windows).
Enderle needs to up his lithium dose.
BTW, just one more thing…
“With a Palm user experience which rivals Apple’s, that being no surprise given Palm’s Apple roots…”
Uh, what roots, Rob? Palm came from Apple? Apple invested in Palm? Nada. About the only ‘roots’ could be some former Apple employees helped create Palm at US Robotics. That’s hardly ‘Apple roots.’
Bambi Hambi
Mac360
Where does this guy get these fairy tales from? The first Mac OS was done by Apple for Apple and then in 1995 Windows came out with there clone OS. A bad imitation but it was the same.
MS signs his checks, and since MS is running so scared of Google and Apple and Linux, they’re writing bigger checks than normal to idiots like Enderle.
Hope no-one followed the link to his bankrupt, vaporous site…
What a joy to learn history from the great Tech Pundit Rob Enderle:
“Microsoft wrote the first MacOS under contract to Apple”
ah, yes… and George Washington wrote the first draft of the Gettysburg Address (from the grave no less)!
Enderle must be getting paid big bucks from Microsoft to spew this level of FUD to the masses. Sad thing is that there will be an army of folks who believe him blindly without questioning where in the world he got that information. I do not even see how folks consider him a “journalist.”
The Village Idiot is correct. Enderle is remembering (!) that, while Woz wrote Integer BASIC for the Apple II, MS wrote Applesoft BASIC for the Apple II circa 1978. And it wasn’t really the OS. The Apple II “Redbook” defines the 2K ROM that was the Apple II “OS”.
Please don’t click on the Fudmeister link, thank you.
Never seen any evidence that MS had anything to do with writing the Mac OS, but there are some really good articles by Andy Hertzfeld on folklore.org which outline a different story….
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=A_Rich_Neighbor_Named_Xerox.txt&characters=Bill Gates&sortOrder=Sort by Date&detail=medium
Mr Wizard,
Enderle clearly wrote “MacOS,” not Apple II’s 2K ROM. The Village Idiot is incorrect.
– Andy
mdn editors-
can you please stop linking to his website? i think most of the regulars know not to give him hits, but for all the new mac users who come here, it’s just wrong to give them the chance to support him. no matter your side, if you visit his page, he wins. don’t let it happen!
dogfriend,
Thanks much for the repetitive link for those of us who missed MDN’s last bulleted link.
If you remove the case from an original 128K Mac (not easy to do since you need a special tool), you will see engraved on the inside of the case the signatures of the team who developed the Macintosh — the team at Apple shown in the picture on the left above. Funny, no mention of Microsoft. Guess Apple forgot to list them
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />)
MDN, stop running this brain-dead fools nonsense in your headlines!
Incase you’re not aware, services like Google News picks up the crap, shows it on their headlines page; it then gets replicated by the lazy syndication junkies and takes on a life of its own.
If you insist on running headlines with this moron’s name, at least use a <i>descriptive</i> adjective before his name.
Maybe this guy has Apple mixed up with IBM. Microsoft was contracted to write what became OS/2 for IBM. That product is now about to be terminated. (yes, they actually still have OS/2 right now)
Well, one thing’s for sure:
Rob “Earthquake” Enderle just became Rob “Microsoft wrote the first Mac OS” Enderle.
For an encore, next week Mr. Enderle will claim that Marie Antoinette wrote the USA’s first Declaration of Independence.
I hope, I mean REALLY HOPE, that this is the result of a typo along the lines of “…wrote software for the first MacOS…” but the as I re-read it, it appears less likely.
Furthermore, pretty much every other fact he presents appears to have been plucked out of nowhere, though I do seem to remember that a number of the people involved in Newton did end up working on the Palm project so that part is based (partially) on reality.
Was this one written after a heavy night on the beers?
Or is he just a dolt?
Enderle is a BOOB….. Microsoft DID NOT write any version of the MAC OS. Now, if you want to discuss Apple OS’s before the 1984 Mac, we can talk about that, as Microsoft did do work with Apple on the DOS Apple products……
Sorry Sarcastic Sal,
I would remove the extra link if I could. I hope you didn’t get a cramp in your index finger from clicking on it.
Sincerely
Your Pal, Dogfriend
>>For an encore, next week Mr. Enderle will claim that Marie Antoinette wrote the USA’s first Declaration of Independence.
Has there been more than one? <g>
Microsoft wrote basic for the Apple II, not the Mac OS. Enderle is terribly confused…
Why does MDN dignify and spread the statements of clearly biased pundits? Everybody knows that Enderle has no clue the only thing keeping him alive is our consideration and the extra revenue he gets from those who travel to his site through MDN’s links. Lets ignore him to death, or even worse, irrelevance.
This guy must be on crack and the Microsoft payroll… he is dangerous and pathetic… if a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth … then he needs to be sued and his falsehoods silenced…
abqmac:
He is not terribly confused, it is not a typo error. He did it with the intention to get hits on his site. And this is not the first time.
He is doing more or less the same as those infamous e-mails with bad news from x or y product, or a person in need for a kidney or those on which they say that hotmail or MSN Messenger services are going to have a fee. The reaction of the people is to spread the word and someone, somewhere, get a big list of e-mail addresses. Just don’t go to his site.
MW “Because” as in “Do not go to his site BECAUSE he is in need for hits”
Paul is a tool.
He actually thinks Microsoft wrote the Mac OS.
Rob, the original Mac OS worked well and fit on a 400 kb floppy.
It wasn’t a bloated, bug ridden POS. That alone should have given you a clue that Microsoft did not have anything to do with it.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this error. Mr. Enderle was obviously concussed by a tipping iMac G5.
I was selling for the Byte Shop up in Seattle in the early 80’s, 80-85, and M$ did NOT write the first Mac OS.
As a matter of fact it was written in Pascal.
Now, isn’t he a dahling, our dear li’l Enderle:) I guess he mixed some wishful thinking into his memory bank and while he was thinking of the software MS wrote for Apple, he had it growing into the entire OS.
I am happy MDN keep publishing these entertaining stories=) We all need a good laugh once in a while…
I think he meant when it comes to software developement…i could be wrong…
—
Ah, I see.. of course, we all know what an OS is.. could this be Enderle’s worst typo ever?
“It is interesting to note, that few seem to remember that Microsoft wrote for the first MacOS under contract to Apple nearly two decades ago but, like most Apple partnerships, this one also ended badly.” – Rob Enderle, September 26th, 2005″
Maybe he is confusing Microsoft with Xerox PARC? Of course, PARC didn’t write the first Mac OS, but Apple did borrow (buy, license, something like that) a bit of the GUI and the mouse from PARC.
Since Mac 128k says:
“Why does MDN dignify and spread the statements of clearly biased pundits? Everybody knows that Enderle has no clue the only thing keeping him alive is our consideration and the extra revenue he gets from those who travel to his site through MDN’s links. Lets ignore him to death, or even worse, irrelevance.”
I’m not sure, but I think it’s because the MDN editors are themselves “clearly biased pundits”, and these types tend to enjoy flaming each other more than just about any other activity. Don’t get me wrong – as an Apple fan myself, I definitely enjoy the MDN brand of bias more than the MS alternatives, but still … don’t ever come to this sight and expect the editors to devote the majority of their time to anything else. Like journalism or objectivity.
I like the posters though. Good bunch!
Anyway, I agree with what someone already said; I wish they would stop linking to, and thus promoting, him. And if they can’t help themselves, then we should boycott reading him regardless. Enderly needs to be given the slow, painful, and totally anonymous ‘professional death’ he deserves, ASAP.
If Microsoft wrote the first MacOS, why did they make such a pig’s ear of the port to x86, and why did it take them so long (20+ years and still waiting) to make it work properly?
If Enderhurl was referring the MS Basic that was on the Apple II series, than he not only screwed up the computer and OS, but also the time frame. That would be more like almost 3 decades ago, not 2.
Still, Enderhurl is just like an accident on the side of the road, ya gotta look. Morbid can sometimes be funny, and he is living proof.
The air is obviously very thin at Rob Enderles place.
Great shot of Microsoft. The only thing missing is the banjo.
Applesoft basic was written by Steve Wozniak, the other Steve at Apple. This is total nonsense. The nice thing about this is that you learn not to believe everything that is published and this applies to a all fields of journalism.
The sad thing is, Enderle really believes this… stuff, he writes. He really does. I’ve had a few email exchanges with him and it is impossible to penetrate the “Enderle Reality Distortion Field” any anything remotely resembling facts. He just brushes them aside with appeals to his own authority, which I’ve never accepted.
It will be no use calling him on this complete load of BS, he will never be convinced otherwise.
The only nice thing I have to say about him, as an “analyst,” is that he does read and answer his own email.
HAHAHA! That’s a funny picture of the MS geeks! Is that li’l Billy in the lower left corner?!
Apple needs to sue this guy. He’s writing absolutely false statements that negatively impact the companies financial viability. This is not freedom of the press, this is defamatory, it’s libel, it would probably be slander if the idiot that wrote it was capable of answering questions or speaking in public (this kind of things seems to go unnoticed these days). Name him and sue him for being the slimy scumbag he is. I hope someone reports him for tax evasion. Wonder who gets his back in jail? Because you know some perjury is going to be happening.
MW=question
Question: What would you do to this guy in a dark alley?
He’s talking about Macs, and he’s talking about the Mac OS.
Don’t look for a hidden way to make him right. He’s completely deluded and an idiot.
Or starting a myth on purpose.
Dazed and Confused wrote:
“Great shot of Microsoft. The only thing missing is the banjo.”
Dang. As a banjo player and an Apple lover, that hurts, and hurts badly!
MW “country” as in the only real country music ever created was bluegrass.
g5mac writes: “Now, if you want to discuss Apple OS’s before the 1984 Mac, we can talk about that, as Microsoft did do work with Apple on the DOS Apple products……”
WRONG! Sorry, but this is not at all true. The first computer i ever bought was an Apple ][ in 1979. A year or two later i heard Steve Wozniak talk at an Apple user’s group. Woz said he wrote Integer BASIC, the Apple ][ ROM and [Apple] DOS. (DOS was later enhanced for 16-sector tracks, and an “autostart ROM” was developed, but both were in-house enhancements, and i think Woz was involved in both.)
Applesoft, the floating point BASIC, was written by M$. M$ also made a Z80 card for the Apple ][ which ran a version of CP/M. That is the closest M$ has come to having anything to do with any Apple OS. (But so few were sold that not many people remember it.)
M$ had nothing to do with Apple DOS, Apple ProDOS, Pascal, MFS, HFS, A/UX, Macintosh System Software, MacOS, nor MacOS X.
If you’re feeling charitable, you can say the idiot Enderle was thinking of the M$ Z80 card (but i seriously doubt he has ever heard of it). If he was thinking of Applesoft, that was a computer programing language, not an OS! And it wasn’t even in ROM at first; had to load it from cassette tape originally.
The very early Apple ][’s didn’t even have a disk drive. Later, that became an option. Woz wrote DOS for the Apple ][ after he invented a very clever Apple ][ disk controller card. Woz did some amazing things. Everybody else’s disk controller cards were huge by comparison.
Note to readers who may not remember the 80’s: “DOS” is a generic term, an acronym, which simply means: Disk Operating System. The term was in use long before there was a M$.
MS didnt write ANY MacOS. Maybe some Apple II Software, but thats a far cry from being a Mac OS. JUst goes to show this idiot doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s talking about.
“Or starting a myth on purpose.”
He is the Fudmeister
what a moron
Enderle probably believes that Al Gore invented the internet.
What a spank-monkey.
CitizenX writes: “I was selling for the Byte Shop up in Seattle in the early 80’s, 80-85, and M$ did NOT write the first Mac OS.
As a matter of fact it was written in Pascal.”
Sorry, but this too is incorrect. Woz wrote DOS in 6502 Assembly Language. I’ve even seen the source code (and modified it for faster boots).
Now Apple did produce a product called the Language Card, a 16K RAM card, into which you could load the Pascal language. Some of the Pascal system was written in Pascal, but not all of it, since Pascal was not a true compiled language (Pascal, on the Apple ][, compiles down to an interpreted code known as p-code).
Dutch writes: “Applesoft basic was written by Steve Wozniak, the other Steve at Apple.”
Sorry Dutch, but M$ did indeed write Applesoft BASIC. Woz wrote the much faster, leaner Integer BASIC.
Of course in those days, M$ was a fledgling start-up.
I had to write him because this blunder was just too big. Here is the reply he just sent back.
That was a me just going to (sic) fast that morning. It should have said Microsoft assisted in writing the first MacOS not that they did it by themselves which clearly wasn’t the case. Somehow helped write, which was what I was thinking, became write (probably was distracted for a moment or simply skipped a word and then spell checker corrected the tense). Anyway thanks for pointing that out, you do know they did the application support and interpreter though right? (They did the basic interpreter for the MacOS as well).
Rob Enderle
Principal Analyst
Enderle Group
Well, I guess I can understand his mistake. He probably got distracted when his G5 iMac tipped over, or perhaps he saw something shiny.
This is an old lie I’ve heard since about 1988. I’ve known people who based their DOS box purchase on the “fact” that MS-DOS must be the same as Macintosh since Microsoft wrote the Mac System software. I am completely serious.
The follow-on to Windows XP — what do they call it, “Copland?” — must be in serious trouble for Microsoft to be trotting out this felgercarb.
Whenever people talk about how Apple failed yadda yadda, I tell them, Apple failed in only two ways 1) firing Steve Jobs 2) underestimating how completely stupid people are and how willing they are to believe and spread lies.
While we’re all fact-checking each other…
Citizen X wrote “M$ did NOT write the first Mac OS. As a matter of fact it was written in Pascal” which is mostly correct. Most of it was in Pascal, the rest was in 68000 assembly (and this was a substantial amount but probably not the majority).
Then Rainy Day miscorrects with the true but non-sequitur argument, “Woz wrote DOS in 6502 Assembly Language.” Citizen X was talking about Mac OS.
Now, if only a certain professional analyst, a Principal Analyst in his own company, showed as much professionalism as us here in the peanut gallery.
So, to conclude, either Enderle mistyped – in which case he should have checked his work – or he just got his “facts” wrong – in which case he should have done his research. Either way, he’s an idiot.
Now, there is only one way to use this information: any time Enderle is quoted in the “real” media (although that epithet is hardly as prestigious as it might have been in the past), we simply draw the attention of that news outlet (and anybody quoting it) to Enderle’s delusional rantings, thus discrediting him from being used in the future.
Rainy Day:
Citizen X was talking about MacOS that, in fact, was almost completely programmed in Pascal.
About AppleSoft, the name came from Apple & MicroSoft so, yes, M$ was involved on developing that floating point BASIC.
What Woz did for the disk drives was to simplify the electronics on it. The format they decided to use cannot read two contiguous zeroes (the thing just read them as one zero) so Woz coded the bytes so there were no contiguos zeroes, expanding the size of each block of bytes.
PCP, I no longer think it could be Crack. It must be PCP. Or heavy daily doses of LSD.
That is obviously a troll article. Or Enderle is a real dumbass.
Sorry CitizenX, i had Apple ][ on the brain. In fact you are correct, the original MacOS (then known as Macintosh System Software) was indeed written in Pascal.
Rick: I recall Woz saying he wrote DOS too. Most folks think of Woz as a hardware guru, which he was, but he was a skilled 6502 coder too.
Ricky Dock: Even Jobs now agrees that it was for the best that he got “fired” from Apple in the 80’s (although he stops short of saying it was for the best for Apple, which it was, at the time).
Okay Enderle, if you’re doing any research and by chance come across this board, you said replying to one of our amateur fact-checkers “ndelc”
“It should have said Microsoft assisted in writing the first MacOS not that they did it by themselves which clearly wasn’t the case.”
They had nothing to do with it.
“Somehow helped write, which was what I was thinking, became write (probably was distracted for a moment or simply skipped a word and then spell checker corrected the tense). Anyway thanks for pointing that out, you do know they did the application support and interpreter though right?”
Here you are trying to spin gold from jargon. If by “application support” you mean “wrote some applications for” then you mean the right thing but expressed it poorly. I doubt you mean the right thing.
In the context of an operating system, “application support” is stuff that helps an application start up, display information, collect user events, shut down, save data to permanent store, and so on.
In the Macintosh, this layer has always been written by Apple. Always.
This is quite obvious, because the Open and Save dialogs in even Mac System 6 were better than the Open and Save dialogs in Windows XP are today. If Microsoft wrote those for the Mac why did they make them suck on Windows?
And there exist oh so many more such cyber-archeological examples of “application support” written by Apple for Macintosh that still to this day have no equal on Windows.
For a stunning example of what I (and other programmers) mean by “application support,” I refer you to the Classic MacOS Resource Manager, even the one shipped with System 1.0. Windows XP has nothing like it. It has a dumb little icon loader and that’s about all.
If Microsoft wrote the application support for Mac OS, this would mean they wrote the Resource Manager. Why did they write such a good one for Macintosh, and put such a bad one in Windows?
“(They did the basic interpreter for the MacOS as well).”
Your use of the definite article is erroneous, as there have been *many* BASIC interpreters (and compilers) for Macintosh.
BASIC is a programming language, “Beginner’s All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code,” developed at Dartmouth.
One of the best versions of BASIC ever made was made by Apple for Macintosh, called MacBasic.
Microsoft had their own competing BASIC for the Mac, but it was a console-based BASIC which did not use any Macintosh features (like the application support you think Microsoft wrote). MacBasic, in contrast, was a beautiful language which showed what a Mac-style BASIC should be.
Apple’s license for Applesoft BASIC (the Microsoft product for the Apple ][) was set to expire in 1985. To renew the license, Microsoft forced Apple to give them MacBasic. Apple had little choice, as their user base was still on Apple ][s running programs in Applesoft BASIC.
Microsoft de-Macified MacBasic (making it ugly and ordinary again) and retargeted it to Windows. Every Microsoft IDE, their entire “Visual Basic” and so on, is derived from that Apple-developed MacBasic.
So, Microsoft wrote *a* BASIC interpreter for the Mac. They also obtained a much better BASIC from Apple and built their language traps out of it.
In the meantime, RealBasic, by neither Microsoft nor Apple, has become *the* best version of BASIC ever.
To sum up, I’ll give you a clue — Microsoft is radically *uncreative*. If they can obtain a technology by purchase or even theft, they will. They never do their own work if they can help it. They are perfectly content to let other people do the hard work, to let the pioneers take the arrows.
So every time you are about to give Microsoft credit for anything, it’s a good idea to double-check. Radically *uncreative*.
Just as if you were going to accuse Apple of being boring, you’d double-check. Or call a politician “honest.”
Saying Microsoft wrote or helped write anything, is saying Microsoft committed a creative act. This is not in keeping with their corporate policy of radical *uncreativity*.
Alarm bells should go off long before your ass is fact-checked back into the stone age by a bunch of amateurs, as has been done so thoroughly, completely, and perfectly on this board on this day.
Yeah, I should have been clearer about Pascal. The original Mac OS was written in Pascal and some assembly as it was told to me.
I also sold a lot of the M$ CP/M cards at the University of Washington and around Seattle, although most were sold to colleges. Sold a lot of languages too. Fortran, Xenix.
M$ was a small company then.
“few seem to remember” – how about the same number of people as there are viruses for the Mac OS? NONE.
I’d like Enderle to produce any shred of “proof” of this off-handed comment/claim. Oh, wait, he’s an analyst. He’s not an investigative reporter, much less a so-called journalist. Won’t happen.
I agree with MacMania:
MDN, stop running this brain-dead fools nonsense in your headlines!
Incase you’re not aware, services like Google News picks up the crap, shows it on their headlines page; it then gets replicated by the lazy syndication junkies and takes on a life of its own.
If you insist on running headlines with this moron’s name, at least use a <i>descriptive</i> adjective before his name.
mw: think, as in THINK about what you’re doing and not your pocket book for all these ads on your page MDN.
Actually, Microsoft didn’t even write the first IBM PC OS. Bill bought it from Seattle Scientific. The first release the Microsoft di of it was DOS 2.0. I remember the cover article about it in I believe Byte MAgazine. It was entitled “The Dark Side of DOS 2.0”
Revisionist history by Rob Enderle
1: FUD the small Mac market share to get them to switch.
2: Con the majority Win drones not to.
Actually, yeah…now that I think of it…Microsoft was also subcontracted by Moses to write the 10 commandments… I know its true because I read it in an Enderle article. God love him.
Andrew Hamilton
Las Vegas Videographers
Hamilton International Productions
http://www.hiproductions.com
Rainy Day:
When I refered to the Woz job with the disk drivers, I didn’t exclude all the genious he did to all the Apple I and ][ projects. I just tried to illustrate one of the skills this brillant guy have.
Thanks for the Mac history lesson Ricky Dock. Awesome!
For those that wonder why MDN posts these idiot Enderle articles…
…here’s your sign.
Oh, and I love the photos MDN.
Our dirty hippy dorks can beat up their dirty hippy dorks
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”snake” style=”border:0;” />
maybe he meant Microsoft BASIC for the apple 2
If you look at the Enderle article, it has a link to “confirm” that M$ wrote the 1st. OS, it was called “sand”. I did a quick search for sand and Mac OS and found links for OS 9’s desktop, “Sand”. obviously not the same. Thing is Enderle’s link is a claim that M$ tried to help in the first OS. http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm Seems like FUD, but someone other than Enderle is trying to imly tat M$ had a hand in the first Mac OS.
From what I can remember, Microsoft was involved in early Mac development somehow, but more on the application side. They wrote the first spreadsheet, called Multiplan, I think. They may have assisted in some other ways early on, but certainly not in doing the main OS work.
OK here’s reality…
Enderle’s got it completely backwards (surprise!).
Apple employees wrote the Macintosh System Software (it was not called Mac OS back then). I’ve got my 0.9x software disk around here somewhere (probably tucked away with my 0.9x AOL disk).
Now for the more interesting twist…
Gates was quite infatuated with the Mac. He made several statements — publicly — that the Mac was where computers were headed after the Mac started shipping. After the Mac shipped he made some truly gushing statements in favor of the Mac.
However…
Before the Mac started shipping Microsoft was shown the Mac and its capabilities. Microsoft was interesteded in bringing new software to the Mac including new stuff that would not run well under MS-DOS (back then there were several different versions of DOS for the Intel platform — MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, etc. but I digress). Apple was very interested in getting the new software onto the Mac, e.g., the first version of Excel, the first windowed version of Word, etc.
Additionally, Microsoft’s GUI layer to go over top of MS-DOS (Windows) was going badly — it was in real trouble.
Then Gates, as only Gates has been able to do (until Steve came back to Apple at least), played hardball and bluffed just like he did with IBM. Gates told Scully that Microsoft would do absolutely NO development work on applications for the Mac unless Apple licensed the SOURCE CODE to the Macintosh System Software to Microsoft.
Scully caved. He was worried about having a new platform out there with very little software to run on it. Scully authorized the licensing of the source code of the Macintosh System Software to Microsoft. The license read that Microsoft got to use the source code in Microsoft Windows version 1.0 and subsequent versions. (That’s right… Microsoft licensed the Mac source code so they could put select pieces of this source code into Windows. Without it Windows would have been significantly delayed.)
Microsoft finished the development of several applications for the Mac (Word, Excel, etc.) and even went out and licensed some other applications to market under the Microsoft name for the Mac platform (e.g., Absoft’s compilers which were written by Absoft but marketed by Microsoft as Microsoft compilers even though Microsoft did not write any of them).
So the reality is that Apple actually wrote part of the first version of Windows.
But it does not stop there.
Apple found out that some of that same source code showed up in Windows 2.0. Apple complained loudly stating the contract only allowed Microsoft to use the source code in 1.x versions of Windows (Apple’s understanding of the “and subsequent version” clause). (I don’t remember the exact wording of the clause, and it’s been over 15 years since I’ve seen a copy of the wording. I’m just using the wording “and subsequent versions” because that’s how I remember it. The wording was something along those lines, but probably much more “legaleze”.)
Microsoft claimed the “and subsequent versions” meant that they could include the Macintosh source code in versions 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, etc. since they were all “subsequent versions”.
Apple sued.
Apple’s lawyers then convinced Scully that they should expand the suit to cover the “look and feel” of the Mac too. The lawyers had won a landmark suit against Franklin and thought they could keep Microsoft from making anything even closely resembling the Mac user interface. Scully approved of the expansion of the suit to include the “look and feel” aspects of the suit.
The suit became known as the “look and feel” lawsuit and the original issues about the source code and Microsoft rights (or lack thereof) to the source code were almost completely ignored… except for one small event. When Windows 3.0 shipped Apple claimed it had some of the original Macintosh System Software source in it too. Apple relatively quickly added Windows 3.0 to the suit.
We all know what happened… The media and the judge focussed on the silly look and feel part of the suit (very likely because Microsoft focussed on it because that may have been the only part Microsoft thought they could win). Microsoft won on ALL counts — source code issues and look and feel issues.
It’s no coincidence that Windows 95 (the first Windows version to even closely look like the Mac interface) came out AFTER the judge’s ruling.
So the reality is that Microsoft wrote absolutely NO part of Apple’s Macintosh System Software. The reality is that Apple wrote part of at least Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x.
MW: actually
As in… Some one should *actually* take a copy of the original contract where Microsoft licensed the source code to the Macintosh System Software and bludgeon Enderle with it.
And yes I had the original version of Word and Excel on my Mac back then … and “Microsoft FORTRAN” (really Absoft’s). I remember the original Excel logo (looked more like AT&T’s logo. The Excel logo changed with version 2.0 (but maybe it was version 2.2 — I don’t remember that detail). Heck I even had a version of PowerPoint with a hardbound manual — yes a real hardbound book!
Back then Microsoft put as many applications as they could onto the Mac after it started shipping.
Also please note in the history given above that Steve Jobs had nothing to do with licensing the Macintosh System Software to Microsoft. It was all Scully.
Also Enderle’s “nearly two decades ago” would put it at the earliest October 1985. More than 18 months AFTER the Mac started shipping!
Yes, of course! Apple shipped the Mac with no operating system for over 18 months while waiting on Microsoft to bail them out with Microsoft writing the Mac system software and delivering it in October 1985!
He can’t even read the calendar right!
(I’ll calm down now.)
Here is the item from the article linked to M$ Rob’s article.
1/24/84 Microsoft takes a leading role in developing software for the Apple Macintosh computer. The company ships Microsoft BASIC and Microsoft Multiplan simultaneously with the introduction of the Macintosh. Microsoft also announces that Word, Chart, and File will ship soon.
Microsoft’s original software development work for Macintosh was code-named “SAND” for “Steve’s Amazing New Device”
Apparently Rob takes this app development to mean OS development. Or maybe he is just trolling! Hard to believe he is really this thick.
shadowself and Ricky Dock just pwned Enderle
All well and good!
Every post here points out obviously that Enderle wrote a piece of crap about the Mac OS’s MS connection. That moron obviously puts out stuff without careful analysis. I am not even sure if he’s capable of doing that.
The only question I have is..do you think he reads MDN? If he does, then he should admit his error and put out a correction to his misstatement in a related article. But I kind of doubt if he reads MDN, which means, all of you MDN posters here with a great piece to say about his stupid mistake should flood him with email to let him know he’s an IDIOT and to force him to recant. Else, his misstatement will spread more damn lies and feed the dark side with the “I told you so” posturing.
Just email him a link to this page. But don’t click on his page link.
I honestly believe that he isn’t quite that stupid, but instead he is trolling for hits on his web page
Here’s another example from M$ Rob. He does not know the difference between iTunes and iPod.
The one product line that Apple has which is dominant in its space, runs on Windows (iPod) and Apple has been, over time, making their PC platform more and more interoperable with Microsoft’s which has helped it survive.
So, I guess one product that runs on Windows is survival for Apple in Rob’s world. His delusions are growing as he keeps drinking that M$ koolaid.
So he has edited the article now with slightly less incorrect information about this so called SAND (Steves amazing new device) project. It is still laughably incorrect. Microsoft was months late releasing software for the Mac 128k. At most, Microsoft helped Apple’s Mac group in debugging various system APIs while they were working on Multiplan of the Mac. This eventually become Excel and it wasn’t really available until the Mac 512 was released.
The second part of his BS is claiming that somehow that relationship ended badly. Considering the Mac BU is writing Mac software to this day and that the work on the Mac led directly to the current Office software that Microsoft makes $billions on, I don’t see how it ended at all much less badly.
I hope someone captured a copy of that page before he edited it. What an idiot but it ought to be preserved for history anyway.
Not only was MS not in any remote way connected to producing any version of the MacOS, it was clear from their early applications such as MultiPlan and MS Basic, that MS had no understanding of how the window/menu modeless application was supposed to work. These were more like adventure games than Mac programs. This was to continue for some years until they hired some Mac programmers to write their first ‘working’ applications in Word and Excel, which were eventually ported to Windows.
No. Enderle is still completely wrong. Even more wrong than before.
Read up on what SAND *really* means here:
< http://tinyurl.com/cxbh6 >
Makes a lot more sense, doesn’t it?
Mike
Heh, I mis-typed the above link and I got this image:
http://tinyurl.com/cbh6
Hey dont knock Microsoft, they innovate all the time
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Check this article out
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/242111_gatesballmerqa24.html
Gates and Ballmer: A look at the future
Despite some high-profile departures to Google and other rivals, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer say Microsoft Corp. is still in a position to attract the top talent needed to ensure the company’s strength as it enters its fourth decade.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Hear audio excerpts from the interview with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer (all in MP3 format):
– The Google threat (2:30, 2.28MB)
– Gates on the future (0:44, 698K)
– ‘The cool factor’ (2:17)
– Business models (0:30, 472K)
– Succession at Microsoft (1:19, 1.2MB)
– Gates’ dance prowess (0:27, 418K)
Microsoft’s chairman and its chief executive also expressed confidence that the company can expand successfully beyond its dominant Windows and Office franchises into everything from video games to business software.
That scope has caused some in the company to question whether Microsoft is trying to do too much. But Gates and Ballmer say they see it as a strategic advantage — and a key differentiator between Microsoft and companies such as Google.
“We both believe in hiring smart people, but the breadth of what they’re working on is not nearly as broad as what we do,” Gates said.
Those were among the observations by Gates and Ballmer during an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Friday at Safeco Field, where more than 17,000 Microsoft employees had gathered for their annual meeting.
Edited excerpts:
Q: You spent time today looking back at the first 30 years of the company. Would you look ahead five years to what you expect Microsoft to be like in terms of its size, its product mix, things along those lines?
Gates: Most of the things that will be big within five years are the things we’re working on today, and so the Xbox, the way that redefines the home environment, some of the ways we’re thinking about the office and the software working there. The key research things we’re doing, we’ve been lucky enough to be able to invest in.
Some of the divisions, like Business Solutions, the search work we’re doing, in five years those ought to be darn good businesses, not only in size, even in profitability. Certainly that’s the bet we’re making today. … People will finally be telling me I was right about the Tablet PC in five years. A lot of continuity. I don’t see any discontinuity in this five-year period.
Ballmer: Not only are we going to be selling a lot of software, but we’re going to be selling a lot of (software) subscriptions on the Internet — large companies as well as consumers. We’re going to be selling a lot of advertising, because advertising is going to be important for funding. So our business models will evolve. We’ll have more new business models in the next five years. I’m sure we’ll have growth. We’ll have growth in the Puget Sound, we’ll have growth outside the Puget Sound.
Q: How do see yourself stacking up against an emerging company like Google?
Gates: Google is actually pretty narrow in what they’re doing today. Now, they’re going to probably go into some new areas, but the idea of great developer tools, great operating systems, great productivity tools, they’re not in any one of those areas. …
Google is a company that hires software talent. … So there’s some similarities. We both believe in hiring smart people, but the breadth of what they’re working on is not nearly as broad as what we do.
Read more at the link. I had a good laugh too!
Thanks for a GREAT post shadowself… Get the feeling we’d be interested to know your real name! Fancy revealing yourself? Please?
LLLLLLLOOOOOOLLLLL!!
what a joke!!
HEHE!
THE BULLSHITING LIES AND FUD IS FLOWING THICK TODAY!
A search on Google for “Enderle” and “idiot” comes back with 81,800 results. That’s pretty funny. Or is it sad? Close call.
macman: Special tool? Ahh, you meant this – http://www.micromac.com/products/macopener.html for removing the Torx screw.
Special tool could also describe self-proclaimed technology experts.
Andy:
I was trying to say that Enderle is confusing AppleSoft BASIC with the Mac OS and that while Microsoft did write AppleSoft BASIC, they didn’t write the Mac OS.
winmacguy: That Seattlepi interview with Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee was quite nauseating.
Memorable quotes:
Gates: “The coolest product being done in the industry today is Xbox 360. The most important work being done in the industry today, you could say is our work in security.”
Gates: “An important element is the breadth of the partnerships we have. … Windows has brought a certain simplicity to IT people, developers and consumers. Now what they expect of Windows, in terms of built-in security, built-in management, built-in modeling, built-in speech recognition. …”
Ballmer: “Built-in search, built-in anything.”
Q: “‘Built-in anything,’ you said, Steve. Is there a risk of running afoul of antitrust authorities again if you continue to follow that strategy?”
Like they care.
Macaday, I’m just the fly on the wall.
Ampar, macman is most likely refering to the case cracker. After you removed the torx screws with a long tool (needed at least a 6.5 inch tool, but I found a 10 inch tool more useful) you needed something to pry the back part (the two sides, back and top were an integral piece) from the front. There were specific tools sold by third parties to do this relatively easily. For one example of a case cracker (actually the kind I have stuffed in my history closet along with my original 1200 baud Apple modem [my wife refers to it as my junk closet]) see: http://www.tecratools.com/pages/datacom/computer.html Scroll down and look at Part # 17290, Long Reach Torx Driver and Part # 42190, Mac Case Cracker.
This article is no more interested in Enderle “work”, it became a fantastic summary of early days of Apple and Microfos. Very thx for the forum authors.
Yes, shadowself. I have an SE and one of those Torx removal devices. That’s why I posted a link to micromac.com. It was an attempt at “humor” with a double meaning for “special tool.” I failed. :o)
MS did the BASIC for the Apple ][ series.
That’s a far cry from the Macintosh – but for this dufus, that’s only a minor ‘detail’.
….Well, I heard of a previously unknown Apple “Easter Egg” (for the original Mac 128k) whereby if you hold down the command, M,S,F,T keys while restarting, instead of a happy Mac face, you will see a dancing Monkey Boy!
Hey — this kind of statement of “fact” works for Fox News and the Bush administration, why can’t it work for Enderle and MS?
The fun continues. I responded to Mr. Enderle’s reply earlier this morning:
___________________________________________________
Rob,
I see that you edited your site, but it’s still completely inaccurate. Microsoft wrote absolutely no part of the Mac OS. They did write the first applications for the Mac, but none of the OS. To say that they did would be like saying Sony helped invent the automobile because they make car stereos.
I find it strange that you decided to point this out, regardless of the fact that it was completely wrong, yet you missed the fact that Microsoft did indeed include Mac OS source code in Windows, so it could be said that Apple helped write Windows, although not on purpose.
I sincerely hope that you’ll edit your article again, and try in the future to do some research before making such baseless claims. I’d also suggest you visit the thread at MacDailyNews (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/7055/) regarding this article because there are several people there who actually know the facts and have written them up very succinctly.
– Nick
____________________________________________________________
And here is what I just got back from him:
____________________________________________________________
They collaborated with Apple on the MacOS, they did the application side Apple did the OS but information flowed both directions to insure the applications actually ran and, without the applications, the Mac would have probability failed as Commodore and Atari did. Did they write one line of Mac code? Possibly but the point is that they helped Apple create a better product and were vastly more expert at tools and OSs then Apple was at that time. The two firms started out, as I’m sure you know, very close. The Mac code in Windows was something I’d never heard before but that would suggest that they did write some code as they had to get it somehow. The code base between the Mac and Windows was otherwise very different.
I’ve looked at the posts and reread the histories I have access to this is accurate. I did screw up with the first post, was simply running way too fast that morning for my own good, but believe this is now factually accurate. To help someone do something doesn’t mean you actually did any of it, but the help is clear when you look at the depth of the Sand project and how closely the firms had to work to make it, and the Mac, successful.
Rob Enderle
Principal Analyst
Enderle Group
___________________________________________________________
If I didn’t shave my head I’d be tearing my hair out. Rob certainly has a singular way of looking at things, doesn’t he? I can’t decide whether to write back to him again or just let it die for the sake of sanity.
Does MDN deliberately leave things out to rile up the readers? Do MDN readers lack the basic curiosity to read the original article?
Sadly, both seem to be true, unless Enderle just edited his story before I read it. The “offending” sentence is the second one in the third paragraph. It reads thusly:
“It is interesting to note, and few seem to remember, that Microsoft helped Apple write the first MacOS under a project code named “sand” http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company.htm over two decades ago, but, like most Apple partnerships, this one ended badly.”
He says that they HELPED WRITE the first MacOS, which is true — it was a widley known fact at the time. It was that collaboration, and the clevely written contracts, that allowed MS to rip off the interface and win when Apple sued them for it.
Regardless the flavor of the slant I detest bias and am sadly disappointed by MDN. I am also dissappointed by the readers with their flame-throwers always at the ready, always ready to provide journalists with an easy example of Mac users as crackpot fanatics.
I’ve had enough. So long. Perhaps I will look in from time to time, to see if anyone has graduated from Junior High.
Tired of Fanatics,
Actually, Enderle did edit his original sentence. But even his edit is false, as is your statement. Microsoft and Apple did NOT collaborate on the Macintosh operating system. Apple created the hardware, OS, and various applications. Microsoft wrote other applications. That’s it.
Holy crap.
If you repeat a lie enough times, eventually people will begin to believe its true. Its a FUD technique.
I wasn’t there when all of this happened, but I am much more inclined to believe Andy Hertzfeld’s account since he was there and he was the one who did a great deal of the work. Read his account at folklore.org. Remember that Fudmeister was not there, but Andy Hertzfeld was. Not Rob Enderle.
Tired of fanatics writes: “they HELPED WRITE the first MacOS, which is true — it was a widley known fact at the time.”
Widely known? You shouldn’t believe everything you hear while institutionalized for schizophrenic delusional psychotic episodes. Not only are the other patients unreliable, but your own recollection as well.
That M$ had anything to do with writing Mac OS is 100% pure bullshit, and all the revisionist history in the world will not make it so. I know, i was watching Apple very closely at the time… hell, i even went to work for them in 1987. There is not one shred of truth to this. It is all fantasy; Bill Gates’ wet dream.
Any software engineer familiar with the original Macintosh Toolbox and M$’s Windoze 1.0 knows that M$ could not possibly have had a hand in developing, much less writing, the Mac OS. Mac code is far better written than anything M$ was capable of. The Mac Toolbox was written by real software engineers, not buffoons.
Real software engineering is something which has never been practiced by M$ (except perhaps in the last 14 months). I know. While at Apple, i interviewed many M$ engineers looking for work at Apple. I’d ask them what it was like writing code for M$. They would tell me horror stories of such atrocious coding practices that any decent programmer wanted out of the environment. Horrible programming practices were not only the norm, but institutionalized and enshrined, and any attempt to apply real engineering practices was belittled, ridiculed, and empathetically beat down. The utter crap which is Windoze is not, as many claim, a necessary evil “because they support so many different hardware configurations” (Unix does it with grace), but because of their total and complete lack of appreciation and utter disregard for the value of disciplined code writing practices. NO OTHER REASON. That is why Windoze is the virus infested, buggy, stinky, smelly pile of dogshit it is.
The notion that M$ had more OS experience than Apple at the time is equally absurd. In the early 80’s, when the Macintosh was being developed, M$ had relatively little OS experience (of course one might argue they still don’t!); most of their experience at the time was limited to porting other’s OS’s, IIRC, and not actually writing OS’s. By then Apple had Apple ][ DOS, Pascal, Apple /// SOS, Lisa OS, and was finishing ProDOS. [Note: I’m not sure how much of Apple ][ Pascal OS might have came from the folks at UCSD.] I suspect that Apple had far more OS experience than M$ at the time! I think they still do.
As for the notion that the Mac OS was licensed to M$, i’ve never heard that before, and think it is merely urban legend. Again, M$ code of that era was so poorly written, i don’t see how this can possible be true. More than likely the person who mentioned that was thinking of the non-disclosure agreement that M$ signed which gave them an advance peek at the Mac. M$ took that as a license to steal, but that’s hardly “licensing the code.” Incidentally, this has been SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for M$ over the years. Sign NDA’s, cuddle up to a company, then rip them off. They especially like to do this to small companies without the financial resources to sue them.
These two recollections by Andy Hertzfeld pretty much sums it all up, and should put to rest any notion that M$ was in any way involved in the development of the Macintosh (other than to rip-off Apple, and to write some third party app’s):
http://tinyurl.com/ak7oh
http://tinyurl.com/dftf6
Another reply from Enderle:
Wait a minute you’re telling me that without any collaboration an OS and the primary applications stack can be built and then magically be ready on the day of launch? Wow, do believe in the tooth fairy too? Seriously, if Microsoft had the option of providing the applications stack 6 to 12 months later this could have worked but Microsoft was the launch partner. And if Microsoft appropriated code, how did they actually get “source”? You can’t have it both ways, either they were sharing source or they weren’t. There was a lawsuit over the IP surrounding a windowed OS, show me the transcript where anyone said code was copied. The code base for Windows and the Mac was dramatically different; the look and feel was similar and formed the basis of the litigation which Apple and later Xerox (who had a better case but waited too long) lost.
Rob Enderle
Principal Analyst
Enderle Group
I don’t think that he actually believes this. He is just pulling your chain at this point. He cannot seriously believe this.
M$ didn’t “collaborate” in the sense they were helping Apple develop the OS. Apple neither needed nor wanted them involved in that way. Indeed, M$ couldn’t have helped; they had nothing to offer in that regard. If they had, Windoze 1.0 wouldn’t have been drawing flies when it came out. Nor Windoze 2.0, for that matter.
Their “collaboration,” if you really want to call it that, was to develop their own third party app’s. Nothing more.
Give it up, Mr. Enderle, Principal Analyst of the one-man “Enderle Group.” While i don’t think Oswald acted alone, in this case, there’s nothing shrouded in mystery, no magic bullets, no grainy 8mm film, no missing frames, no shadowy figures in a grassy knoll. All very straightforward and easy to comprehend.
http://tinyurl.com/ak7oh
http://tinyurl.com/dftf6
I think Rob Enderle is contracting alzheimer’s.
Even renoved Apple-basher Paul Thurrott can’t get it right:
He wrote: “Microsoft did, in fact, help Apple create the first Mac OS. And they did, in fact, have a big say in how the UI turned out. For example, Microsoft was responsible for making the default button in dialogs (“OK” in a dialog with OK/Cancel choices) bold and, thus, more obvious to the user.”
I have read dozen books about history of Apple Computer and so far I haven’t seen a single piece of fact to support Thurrott’s claim. It’s not true.
It so sad when people make claims when they don’t have the facts to support them.
“ Paul Thurrott [writes]: Microsoft was responsible for making the default button in dialogs (“OK” in a dialog with OK/Cancel choices) bold and, thus, more obvious to the user.”
Okay, here’s what really happened: After Steve Jobs (SJ) invented the Time Machine (TM) – you know, the one he uses to go into the past and steal ideas from M$ to put into MacOS before M$ can put them into Windoze – a horrible malfunction occurred in the TM sending SJ not only very far back in time, but also into the fictional reality of Middle Earth. There SJ was, stuck amid this massive battle between Mordor and just about everybody else in Middle Earth, but he didn’t realize it because Mordor seemed so very much like Redmond, and the Dark Lord had an uncanny resemblance to Bill Gates. Anyway, it was actually a collaboration of Elfs, Hobbits and a wizard named Gandalf who created the Macintosh. (It is Gandalf’s contribution to the Mac, by the way, which many believe give it its special magical quality.) SJ was eventually able to return to 1984, with the help of Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox, who had actually had some experience with time travel before (using a Delorian made into a time machine†).
So that, my friends, is the real story of how the Mac was created! Remember, you heard it here first.
________________________
† According to Rob Enderle, Principal Analyst of the Enderle Group, what most folks don’t realize is that no special effects were used in the production of the movie Back to the Future as the Delorian really was a time machine. That’s how they were able to make the 1955 scenes look so very realistic: They were actually filmed in 1955!
An interesting aside is that Paul Thurrott claims Microsoft actually wrote the software for the Delorian. This theory, however, has been discredited by the facts that: 1) The time-machine Delorian, if it really exists and this theory is true, obviously works, and therefore could not have any M$ products in it, and 2) The Delorian actually has no software.
Thanks Rainy Day
Your version of the facts makes much more sense than Rob Enderle’s version.
Oops, i’m always getting my tenses mixed up: Meant to say the TM SJ uses to go into the future to change the past.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />
MW: “Around,” as someday i’ll get around to proof reading more carefully!
hahahaha, wow! I was hoping for an improvement in the remarks to sophomoric, but alas those expectations were far too high!
While you were in diapers, I was selling, supporting and repairing Macs and had regular contact with Apple. They were very tight with MS at the time and collaborated on many things.
Not having been in Apple, I may not have the inside scoop, but it was pretty common knowledge that they worked closely.
Rainy Day’s comments are really quite sad. You can wipe the foam from your mouth but it’s still quite clear you are rabid!
Enderle is not an idiot. He is not dumb. He is very wily and very clever.
He is also under contract to both Microsoft and SCO to smear the opposition or in any way possible rattle them. These are not hidden facts. Not more than back page news.
Rob Enderle is just trying to piss you off – and he seems to have succeeded.
Wake up before night falls.
Rob Enderle, er, Still tired of fanatics writes: “While you were in diapers, I was selling, supporting and repairing Macs and had regular contact with Apple. They were very tight with MS at the time and collaborated on many things.”
I see you have a time machine too.
If you’re not going to believe a first-hand witness like Andy Hertzfeld, nothing will convince you, ye ol’ FUDmeister.
I wonder what colour the sky is in his world!
oki doki Notebooki , Telewizory Lcd , dvd , kino domowe , Kamery Cyfrowe , kuchnie , ekspresy do kawy , lg , samsung , siemens , panasonic , toshiba , amica , Odzież dziecięca , Kancelaria prawna
Rob rocks! Welcome to the social.
He’s confused. Microsoft didn’t write MacOS. They wrote Basic for the Mac. And they wrote OS/2 for IBM. I’d guess he is confusing one of those for MacOS.