From: andrew@cubetech.com
Subject: Re: Will the real Taligent please stand up? (was Re: PowerPC or Mac???)
Organization: Cube Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:38:25 GMT

In article <4f=IDNy00iV387Coc8@andrew.cmu.edu> Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 14-Dec-92 Re: Will the real
>Taligent .. by Andrew Loewenstern@cubet 
>> Look at what's happening.  This is obvoiusly not a "joint venture"
>> this is "lets put our guys together and see if we can steal a lot of
>> technology from the other."  IBM talks about folding OOP bullshit into
>> OS/2, and Apple talks about doing the same thing with System 7.  Where
>> is the joint product.
>
>You can't just abandon the rest of the world and start something new! 
>(Look at NeXT, which is floundering in comparison to Mac and PC)  You
>have to take small steps.  Companies don't take well to quick changes
>(ie, entire computer systems (hardware and software) changing
>overnight).  Like I said, Jobs did it, and while they have the best OS
>around, no one's using it.

Are we really on comp.sys.MAC.advocacy??  "can't just abandon the rest
of the world and start something new??"  What planet are you from?
How do you think the Mac, which is only compatible with other machines
from Apple, btw, got started?  By the same damn person at NeXT who
abandoned the rest of the world and started something new!  Some thing
with all "personal computers."  While everyone was saying that you
couldn't make a computer that fit on your desk, Altair and Commodore,
etc... did, and it wasn't compatible with existing mini's and
mainframes.

"you have to take small steps"  bullshit!  Macintosh didn't evolve
from the Apple ][ or the C-64 or the PeeCee.  There were no small
steps with Macintosh.

>> I bet nothing comes of Taligent but a major "lovers spat" where IBM
>> and Apple come out with separate, competing products.
>
>You obviously don't know the game plan then do you.  From the IBM side
>comes a combination of OS/2 and AIX.  OS/2's object oriented WPS is now
>being ported to AIX and DOS, and even Windows (its main competitor). 
>OS/2 will be transfered to a Mach derived kernal.  From Apple's side
>comes a combination of System 7 and A/UX.  I've heard that System 7 will
>also become kernal based like OS/2.  The interface probably will be some
>mish-mash of WPS and System 7.  It'll probably use the System Object
>Model of WPS or some derivative thereof.  The actual GUI will probably
>resemble System 7, ie single menu bar etc.  The underlying structure
>will be based on a kernal, borrowing from A/UX and AIX.  etc etc etc. 
>If you consider the software side of the alliance, the first steps have
>already taken place.  The hardware side is much more advanced, as the
>first PowerPC chips have been produced.

OK, here's how it sounds:

IBM				Apple
-------------			------------------
OS/2 with Mach kernel		System 7, with Mach kernel
Windows Interface		Macintosh Interface
AIX'isms.  probably POSIX	AUX crapola
Some PowerPC hardware		Some PowerPC hardware
Very little OO stuff so far	Pink

Where is the "joint" development??  It looks like IBM is getting
Motorola to codevelop and fab their processors, and Apple is just
getting a good deal on them.  While at the same time, IBM and Apple
are developing their own separate and distinct operating systems
independantly of eachother.  Some of this development apparently
happens in the same building (Taligent HQ).  I guess that's the
"joint" part.

This looks like an IBM-Motorola joint-venture with Apple going along
for the ride as far as hardware goes.  As far as software, it doesn't
look like there is joint *anything* going on.


>> if I may quote Steve Jobs: "Name one really sucessful product that
>> came from an alliance... I can't think of one sucessfil product in the
>> history of our industry that ever came from an alliance.  Or any other
>> industry, either.  Toyota and GM? - no.  I'm sure there are some
>> examples bit they're not standouts.  The statistics are not in favor
>> of these industry alliances."
>
>If you wanna talk cars, let's see, Forda/Mazda alliance: produced Ford
>Probe and Mazda 626 (I think).  GM/Toyota: produced Geo's for GM.  These
>aren't bad cars, and they are better than most of what was coming from
>Detroit at their initial introduction.

You totally missed the point.  While the Geo's "aren't bad cars", are
they sucessful?  Is GM raking in the bucks?  Last time I checked GM
was in deep shit.  Last time I check IBM was in deep shit too.  But
hang on, you are implying that if it's a good product then it's
sucessful.  I doubt anyone here could (sucessfully) argue that
NeXTSTEP is not a better OS than Macintosh, but does that make it
sucessful?

NeXT has sold more than 10 times the number of Object Oriented
Operating Systems than anyone else.  They are the standard for OO-OS.


andrew
-- 
andrew@cubetech.com      |  "C++'s runtime sucks shit!  Virtual functions
Andrew Loewenstern       |   can go straight to hell!"  - Ron Pomeroy
Cube Technologies, Inc.  |                   ForYourEyesOnly public key:
0000000701B61D1ADF0DFC9C16185CEA055200000007EB4A9FEB1922065D471A89E905B5
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy