NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
computerhistory.org
NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#2Like Symbolics, it was way ahead of its time.
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#3Dot dot com?
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#4NeXT: most successful failure ever.
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#5Dot dot com?
That kept driving me nuts. It's as if the author didn't know that at the time it was written as the "dot-com" boom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#6The article in general is pretty good, but this is off:
> The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95.
I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#7The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.
While Apple was faffing about with Taligent and Copland, Microsoft shipped something that provided preemptive multitasking and memory isolation for 32-bit apps.
Windows 95 was a collection of hacks that never should've worked but it put Apple behind the 8 ball to bring its OS tech into the present.
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#8The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.
They really were, though; astoundingly, System 7/8/9 didn't even support preemptive multitasking[1] which Windows 95 did have.
[1] http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/44121/wha...
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#9The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.
System 9 still lacked preemptive multitasking, due to a pragmatic decision from the very beginning of MacOS. (Perhaps even predating the Mac?) That alone would be enough to say that it was showing its age. As someone who was using System 9 at the time, I would say that this is indeed what knowledgeable users were thinking.
Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened
#10The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.
Windows 95 supported preemptive multitasking for 32-bit applications. Mac OS kept using cooperative multitasking for an embarrassingly long time through all versions of 7, 8, and 9. Macs didn't get preemptive multitasking until OS X came along although there was a half hearted API that some apps could opt into in OS 9. By that time, a lot of Windows users were already on Windows 2000 or moving up to XP, both of which made classic Mac OS look downright archaic. But not to be mistaken, Windows 95 was a lot more advanced than classic Mac OS in a lot of important characteristics.