I spent a lot of time last week reading the Microsoft employee blogs and apparently there is some reasonably strong feeling among many folks who work there that the wrong “Steve” is running the company. This is, in my view, a “grass is greener on the other side of the fence” type of perception — since “the other Steve,” Jobs, that is, is neither known for being a good software guy nor being anywhere near as employee-focused as Microsoft’s executives are. He does, however, have skills that Microsoft could use desperately right now.
What a horrible thought, or group of thoughts. I am a long time PC user, and after years of using PC's, I love OS X. Why would you want to tack the OS X interface onto an unstable OS like Windows? I would think it would be more effective to tack the Windows interface onto OS X. Besides, Microsoft already has a visionary like Steve Jobs: Ray (Lotus Notes) Ozzie. They should put him in charge of the next OS. I personally hope that Apple releases OS X for the PC, and kills off the Microsoft monster. The holes in Microsoft's OS constitute a very real threat to the national security of every government that uses XP.
I agree with this strategy. The notion of merging will invoke such fury never before seen in the tech industry. The parttnership with Intel was one of necessity following failed relationships with Motorola and IBM for executing on promised roadmaps. The corporate cultures, which should never be underestimated in impact, and business models are so vastly different I can see nothing but implosion akin to the AOL/Time-Warner merger. Sounds good on paper, lousy in practice. No. Merger is as bad an idea I have heard in quite some time.
mrmanish....Windows is not based on DOS. There was a Windows GUI that did run on top of DOS, but Windows 98SE was the last version of that combo. Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP have never been based on DOS. The design of Windows comes mostly from the mainframe & mini-computer architecture (being developed by Dave Cutler who wrote the VMS operating system). The architecture of Windows is probably most similar to Unix or VMS, and is not comparable to DOS. The Windows kernel is designed to be agnostic about what sub-system runs on it. There is a Unix (POSIX) subsystem, a Novell Netware subsystem, and of course the more visible Windows API. For backwards compatability, there have also been OS/2 subsystems, as well as Win16 and DOS. MS and Apple could probably port the Mac OS to run as a subsystem on the Windows kernel. This would not be a trivial task, but it would not be too difficult (again, there are already a number of subsystems, including a Unix one that could be the basis for a Mac port). This would get rid of some of the bottlenecks in the OS that prevent the Mac from being a good high-end server OS. Since subsystems can run side-by side without emmulation, Mac users could take advantage of all the Windows software, without a performance penalty.
Although your proposition is interesting, there are some invalid points: - Changing to DOS from Unix - This will never happen. The Unix kernel on OS/X is faster, much more efficient, and stable then DOS. DOS, and even the windows kernel, are very inefficient. Secondly, the security in os/x is powerful because of the Unix Kernel. Switching to DOS would totally change the performance of OS/X. - Interoperability- This is important and available through Virtual PC vs Native. The reason it will never work native is because of the first point.
Sounds exactly like the traditional Microsoft approach to dealing with a serious competetive problem, buy them 'n bury them. I happen to believe that one could probably make a very good business case for some expanded degree of cooperation between the two firms, but rather than Rob's suggestions I think that what they should be looking at is a deal whereby Microsoft concedes the home market to Apple and Apple concedes the business and professional (including creative) market to Microsoft. Then the two of them can make some serious efforts at building the interoperability into thier respective OS's to manage the cross-over of information from home to office. Oh, and Rob, Apple already has a billion dollar 3rd party ecosystem built around the iPod. Mike
Loading ...
What if Microsoft Bought Apple?
Posted by: Rob Enderle April 3, 2006 05:00 AMI spent a lot of time last week reading the Microsoft employee blogs and apparently there is some reasonably strong feeling among many folks who work there that the wrong “Steve” is running the company. This is, in my view, a “grass is greener on the other side of the fence” type of perception — since “the other Steve,” Jobs, that is, is neither known for being a good software guy nor being anywhere near as employee-focused as Microsoft’s executives are. He does, however, have skills that Microsoft could use desperately right now.
Why would you want to tack the OS X interface onto an unstable OS like Windows? I would think it would be more effective to tack the Windows interface onto OS X.
Besides, Microsoft already has a visionary like Steve Jobs: Ray (Lotus Notes) Ozzie.
They should put him in charge of the next OS.
I personally hope that Apple releases OS X for the PC, and kills off the Microsoft monster. The holes in Microsoft's OS constitute a very real threat to the national security of every government that uses XP.
The corporate cultures, which should never be underestimated in impact, and business models are so vastly different I can see nothing but implosion akin to the AOL/Time-Warner merger. Sounds good on paper, lousy in practice. No. Merger is as bad an idea I have heard in quite some time.
The design of Windows comes mostly from the mainframe & mini-computer architecture (being developed by Dave Cutler who wrote the VMS operating system). The architecture of Windows is probably most similar to Unix or VMS, and is not comparable to DOS.
The Windows kernel is designed to be agnostic about what sub-system runs on it. There is a Unix (POSIX) subsystem, a Novell Netware subsystem, and of course the more visible Windows API. For backwards compatability, there have also been OS/2 subsystems, as well as Win16 and DOS.
MS and Apple could probably port the Mac OS to run as a subsystem on the Windows kernel. This would not be a trivial task, but it would not be too difficult (again, there are already a number of subsystems, including a Unix one that could be the basis for a Mac port). This would get rid of some of the bottlenecks in the OS that prevent the Mac from being a good high-end server OS. Since subsystems can run side-by side without emmulation, Mac users could take advantage of all the Windows software, without a performance penalty.
- Changing to DOS from Unix - This will never happen. The Unix kernel on OS/X is faster, much more efficient, and stable then DOS. DOS, and even the windows kernel, are very inefficient. Secondly, the security in os/x is powerful because of the Unix Kernel. Switching to DOS would totally change the performance of OS/X.
- Interoperability- This is important and available through Virtual PC vs Native. The reason it will never work native is because of the first point.
I happen to believe that one could probably make a very good business case for some expanded degree of cooperation between the two firms, but rather than Rob's suggestions I think that what they should be looking at is a deal whereby Microsoft concedes the home market to Apple and Apple concedes the business and professional (including creative) market to Microsoft. Then the two of them can make some serious efforts at building the interoperability into thier respective OS's to manage the cross-over of information from home to office.
Oh, and Rob, Apple already has a billion dollar 3rd party ecosystem built around the iPod.
Mike