Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Nowhere did I say that NeXTstep and Copland shared APIs. What I said is that OpenSTEP satisfied many of Apple's design goals. antitroll
, it might surprise you to learn that that there is more than one way to skin a cat. For example, Display PostScript in OpenSTEP and NeXTstep satisfies the same goal as QuickDraw GX in Copland. Services in OpenSTEP satisfies many of the same goals as OpenDoc in Copland. Do you understand?
You are confusing vaporware bullshit with operational products. DPS and QD GX might have overlapped a bit in the goals that they targeted, but were not remotely functionally equivalent. DPS actually worked, QD GX was a three story brick building built on top of a lump of sand. Services similarly has little to do with OpenDoc, but again had real functionality, not just a core intent driving toward being a product.
NextSTEP was an advanced, modern object oriented development system build on a Unix OS, and was used in the real world for half a decade before being left on the shelf without a clear future.Copland was never anything more than an alpha level development project with silly goals. It was layers of bandaids on top of a mess of embedded System Software created in the early 80s.
Let me go on. It is simply not true that Copland yielded nothing. To the contrary, it yielded quite a lot. Many Copland technologies were incorporated into System 7.5. Copland technology persists to this very day in MacOS X 10.7.
Hardly. There were bits of Copland that were salvaged for Mac OS 8, including the multithreaded Finder. That was completely replaced in Mac OS X long before Lion. Apart from a few raw technology concepts from the mid 90s (Vtwin search indexing, ColorSync, Data Detectors), there isn't even a flitter of anything related to Copland in Mac OS X. Even the bits of Mac software that were added to OS X, such as QuickTime, have since been radically rewritten. Even Carbon is essentially gone now, and it was largely rewritten during the initial development of Mac OS X.
Lest there be any confusion, the Macintosh II was introduced in 1987. In 1989, I purchased my first Mac, a Macintosh IIcx. The NeXTstation was a $10,000 computer that targeted education. To say that Apple competed with NeXT is like saying that Cadillac competes with Rolls Royce.
Right the II was introduced in 87, and the original NeXT debuted in 88. NeXT started around 8,000 and got more expensive as you added RAM. But the same went for the Mac II line. Adding 8 bit color made it rather expensive, and matching some of the specs of the NeXTstation made it equally expensive.
Your 1989 16Mhz 030 Iicx with 2MB would have started at $6k. A 1990 25Mhz 040 NeXTStation with 8MB cost $5k. Hardly out of the league of high end Mac systems in price, just faster.
You may assert that Apple was falling about, but assertion is not proof.
Oh come on, read a book. Apple spent the early 90s under Spindler trying to sell itself to Sun and IBM. It was directionless and headed toward irrelevancy. in 96/97, Apple began losing nearly $1 billion a year back to back.
Apple is today the World's highest capitalized company. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple was smaller company with problems. However, Apple had fantastic products and it had fans who would buy nothing else. Compare this to Apple's erstwhile competitor, IBM. In 1996l, IBM was still in the personal computer business, but it was IBM that was irrelevant--not Apple. IBM had lost the OS battle to its "partner," Microsoft. It had lost the CPU battle to the likes of Compaq and HP. Whatever Apple's issues, Apple was never irrelevant.
Nothing you say there is relevant at all.