near a decade ago , just a few months after Microsoft ship Windows 95 , I asked Bill Gates if it was a witting determination in the development of that ware to give Windows more of a Mac look and find . Of course I knew he ’d say it was n’t , but I could n’t resist asking . “ There was no end even to contend with Macintosh , ” Gates proclaimed . “ We do n’t even opine of Macintosh as a competition . ”
That was a crock , so I weigh the issue a little . I ask him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 look a lot like Mac 88 , and whether the law of similarity was just a concurrence . I did n’t expect a sobbing confession of mimicry , but I thought it would be nerveless to see how he ’d respond . Surprisingly enough , Gates shift gear wheel and became more outgoing .
“ Some of the things in Windows 95 the Mac had in the beginning , ” he acknowledged , citing farseeing file names , plug - and - maneuver potentiality and build - in peer - to - peer networking . You sleep with that had to be tough for him , so when he promulgate that “ there ’s a ton of thing even in Windows 3.1 that the Mac does n’t have , that someday they ’ll probably add to their system , too , ” I did n’t have the spirit to call him on it when he did n’t quote any examples .
That interchange with Gates come to judgment after I read the “ Giants in Jeopardy ” story , part of Computerworld ’s special report on the futurity of IT . I found it striking that the IT visionaries who anticipate a declination in Microsoft ’s ascendence due to threats like Linux and Google never mentioned Apple Computer .
Long before Linux became a spine in Microsoft ’s side , Apple was a full - fledge pain in the neck in the company ’s you - know - what . On the one hired man , it was in Microsoft ’s full interestingness for Apple to be successful , since software for the Mac has long been a huge patronage for Microsoft . That , in fact , is why Microsoft invested $ 150 million in Apple two years after the launch of Windows 95 .
On the other hand , Microsoft had to deal with the abomination of being perceived as a engineering science follower , play snatch - up to the operating - organisation strides that Apple was making . That the good technology does n’t always pull ahead is a the true of life to which Microsoft owes much of its success , and Apple ’s engineering never really bruised much more than the egos of Microsoft ’s executives . Still , it ’s interesting that Apple has become so totally marginalized in some quarters that it ’s no longer even part of the discussion of a future world edict in which Microsoft is see to it as less dominant .
I ’m no IT futurist , but confide me , you need to include Apple in the discussion . If you do n’t believe it , I urge you to read Mark Hall ’s tale in last week ’s issue ” In Business to Stay . ” It ’s a compelling account of how a develop number of your peer are using Apple ’s technology in corporate environments outside of traditional Mac stronghold like publishing . One of the key attractions , Hall notes , is that the Mac OS XTC operating arrangement , with the exception of its user - user interface and direction tools code , is an open - rootage version of Unix that ’s tuned for open - germ offerings like the Apache Web waiter , MySQL database and JBoss app server .
Combine that open - source cultivated carrot with near - bulletproof surety , and you begin to understand that we ’re talk about more than being later to the game with farseeing file names here . The good technology may not always succeed . But it ’s not go to go forth , either .
For more go-ahead computing news , visitComputerworld.com . Story right of first publication ( c ) 2005 Computerworld , Inc. All rights book .
