From Microsoft : to Windows 9X users: You are a Mac.

[Saist]

Click the picture for the full 800*600 picture.

It is possible to work around this problem on 9x systems by navigating IE to Microsoft.com first, THEN opening up Windows Update... but.. dear me...

[Gabi]

That's Microsoft for you.

[Zedd]

Yep thats their speed

[Aridas]

Well, of course it was. To my knowledge, which MAY be false, they got permission or something to borrow elements from the mac OS for their system, went a bit overboard doing so, and got into a court case which I THINK they won... Bad memory, but I know at least part of the betrayal thing. Never seen that screen before though.

[Kasarn]

The operation completed successfully

[superluser]

Well, of course it was. To my knowledge, which MAY be false, they got permission or something to borrow elements from the mac OS for their system, went a bit overboard doing so, and got into a court case which I THINK they won... Bad memory, but I know at least part of the betrayal thing. Never seen that screen before though.

If you're referring to what I'm referring to, I think that case was one in which Microsoft basically made a total ripoff of the Macintosh operating system with Windows 2.0 and 3.0.  I don't think that they used any Macintosh code, so it shouldn't be showing up in Windows.

[Saist]

Well, of course it was. To my knowledge, which MAY be false, they got permission or something to borrow elements from the mac OS for their system, went a bit overboard doing so, and got into a court case which I THINK they won... Bad memory, but I know at least part of the betrayal thing. Never seen that screen before though.

um... wrong. On several parts.

MS-DOS had more in common with DR-DOS.  There was also a clear "development" path from the first Windows GUI up to 3.1, then the Windows 95 release.  Win9X is essentially a 32-bit extended version of MS-DOS with a GUI stuck on top.

anyways, back to the point on hand, TheRegister, not renowned for being accurate in it's reports, does report a theory as to why 9x systems are returning as "Macintosh" to the Windows update system.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/friendly_fire_virtual_pc/

"No matter what I tried, MS update wouldn't be convinced I was actually using an MS product. I suspect since MS now doesn't support win98 their web-based logic checks for all "supported" MS operating systems and by default the old IF/NOT/ELSE ELSEs to THEREFORE NOT MS so must be MAC. An 'honest' mistake to be sure, we all know that MS wouldn't do anything to force legacy users to upgrade

seems reasonable enough.

[Aridas]

um... wrong. On several parts.

Except the whole windows + mac part.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. is the most complicated software copyright lawsuit to date. Software developers and the Macintosh user community followed it with great interest. Some observers cast Apple as the villain, saying that after failing in the marketplace, it was trying to use the courts to corner the market on an idea that was benefiting the world, and if Apple won, the precedent would limit software developers' creative freedom. Apple's critics added that even if this were legally and ethically correct behavior, Apple wasn't the inventor of the GUI or the desktop metaphor in the first place. Others said Microsoft were the bad guys, brazenly stealing from Apple's work and flouting the law, and that if Microsoft won, a precedent was set that would allow big companies to steal the core concepts from any software developer's work and get away with it.

As it happened, the court's approach seemed to invalidate the copyrighting of a broad "look and feel" of a piece of software, though this was not decisively stated in the court's ruling. The fact that Apple and Microsoft had entered into the licensing agreement for Windows 1.0 made a large part of the case a mere contractual matter rather than a matter of copyright law — much against Apple's preference — so it was not necessary for the court to set a precedent in its ruling. It remains unclear what would have happened if Apple had acquired a software patent purporting to secure the "look and feel" of the Macintosh user interface as an invention, and had then pursued Microsoft and HP under patent law. Had Apple been able to win a look and feel suit, this precedent may have hindered the development of the X Window System and other open source GUIs.

In 1997, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI, as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft, would be settled when Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser over Netscape, and Microsoft agreed to continue developing Office and other software for the Mac for the next 5 years, and purchase $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.

[Saist]

first thing, that's from a wiki entry. Like the Register, take it with 6 tubs of salt.

Second thing,  I happened to be around back then so I have a much clearer picture of the proceedings than you do.

You missed the crucial reason on why Apple defaulted. Xerox. Also from a Wiki entry is this little gem

In a twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed (i.e. Xerox waited too long to file suit.)

Apple lost in court because of Xerox, on which Microsoft had copied.

Yes, your friendly neighborhood SuperCopier started the GUI.

[Tapewolf]

Beautiful.  Of course last I checked, Windows doesn't support the Windows Sound System, so I'm not exactly surprised.

[Aridas]

quote author=je.saist link=topic=2501.msg102917#msg102917 date=1174979262]
first thing, that's from a wiki entry. Like the Register, take it with 6 tubs of salt. [/quote] so? it's explained more in quite a few other places, and they can't all be wrong. You certainly aren't the definitive source of truth, yourself. If you worked for one of those companies and have every single existing document on that situation, then we can talk about who's a reliable source.

[Tapewolf]

MS-DOS had more in common with DR-DOS.  There was also a clear "development" path from the first Windows GUI up to 3.1, then the Windows 95 release.  Win9X is essentially a 32-bit extended version of MS-DOS with a GUI stuck on top.

The MSDOS / DRDOS thing was always an interesting issue.  Basically they were both based on CPM - DRDOS legitimately so, and MSDOS by stealing code from DRI... as Gary Kildall once proved in court by making MSDOS say "(C)1976 Digital Research Inc" or somesuch right before their eyes.  This is probably the reason MS never went after DRI over DRDOS, because they knew that they'd stolen too much stuff from CPM themselves.

And yes, Win9x is DOS with a few extensions running a fancy shell.  Some of these extensions are quite interesting - once the system was in 32-bit mode it would overwrite parts of the 16-bit kernel with an invalid instruction (ARPL if memory serves) so that when a DOS application tries to run that function in V86 mode, it was intercepted by the GPF handler and rerouted to a 32-bit equivalent.

This could speed up the operations, but it meant that the 16-bit kernel had to be exactly the right 'shape' in memory for it to work, so the 16 and 32-bit  kernels for original, SP2, 98 and ME had to be kept in lockstep.  It also had the 'beneficial' sideeffect of preventing you from being able to run Win9x under DRDOS.

I did actually see a specially-modified version of the DRDOS kernel which could run '98.  It was originally going to be released as a freebie but they changed their mind on that.  I still regret not stealing a copy of it 

[superluser]

so? it's explained more in quite a few other places, and they can't all be wrong. You certainly aren't the definitive source of truth, yourself. If you worked for one of those companies and have every single existing document on that situation, then we can talk about who's a reliable source.

No, I think the point is more that you misinterpreted things.  Apple v. Microsoft was a landmark decision about ``look and feel.''  Microsoft didn't steal any code.  I think.  If you want to look at the court's decision, I think this is it.

The point is that there should be no common code.

The MSDOS / DRDOS thing was always an interesting issue.  Basically they were both based on CPM - DRDOS legitimately so, and MSDOS by stealing code from DRI...

I thought Seattle Computer Products stole the code from DRI, and Microsoft made SCP a deal they couldn't refuse.

[Tapewolf]

The MSDOS / DRDOS thing was always an interesting issue.  Basically they were both based on CPM - DRDOS legitimately so, and MSDOS by stealing code from DRI...

I thought Seattle Computer Products stole the code from DRI, and Microsoft made SCP a deal they couldn't refuse.

I don't know whether it came part and parcel of QDOS, or whether MS lifted it from CPM afterwards, but that's what I was told when I worked there 

[Keleth]

first thing, that's from a wiki entry. Like the Register, take it with 6 tubs of salt.

so? it's explained more in quite a few other places, and they can't all be wrong. You certainly aren't the definitive source of truth, yourself. If you worked for one of those companies and have every single existing document on that situation, then we can talk about who's a reliable source.

I wouldn't really talk too much on that vein either Aridas, did you work for those companies either? Do you have official documentation?

And as for "It's on the net in a few places, so it must be true"

Does that mean like a few internet sites I found saying the Holocaust didn't happen, then they must be right?



Yes, Microsoft took the Idea of the GUI's look and feel, But they did not take any actual code. (As far as anyone knows)

So microsoft wrote the code for everything themselves, not apple. Besides, Apple software for the longest time was completely incompatible with PC hardware natively.
You could emulate it, and even then only with I believe OSX which someone came out with VirtualPC.

The simplified point is, microsoft simply had anyone accessing windows update pre-Windows2000 be told they have a mac, so they'll buy a new windows operating system.

Simple selling strategy.

Edit: Had to edit this so Aridas's quote would show up properly.

[Aridas]

No, i'm saying people telling me i'm wrong is hypocritical, because they would know just as much. Saying wikipedia is wrong and then supporting the article is pretty hypocritical as well.

And that all still doesn't explain why i've never seen that window in my life. It's not happening to everyone at all times.

[Keleth]

Wikipedia entries are made by regular people.

And like most people, some know what they're talking about. And a lot do not.

[superluser]

No, i'm saying people telling me i'm wrong is hypocritical, because they would know just as much. Saying wikipedia is wrong and then supporting the article is pretty hypocritical as well.

You know, Some Guy with a Website makes a point.

Also, just because something's incompatible doesn't mean that they didn't use the same code.  FreeBSD and Linux prove that.  Of course, I don't see any evidence that Microsoft did illegitimately use any of Apple's code.