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?
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.