Re: Apple //f...

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) wrote:

>>Since the "Mac" GUI is embedded in the IIGS, it is doubtful
>>that Apple would sell the rights to the IIGS even to this day.
>>It would be too easy for someone to take that GUI out of the
>>IIGS and wrap it in modern hardware (maybe even in a PC)
>>and challenge the Mac.
>>
>>Think about it.  Some company buys the IIGS.  It takes only
>>the GUI out of it.  It then builds an OS around that GUI and
>>sells the OS for PCs.  That's something Apple is too smart
>>to allow happen.
>
>Uh, GUIs aren't that hard to come by. Don't see BeOS for Intel or anything
>else challenging the Gates empire exactly. There is no room in the market
>for anyone besides Mac and Wintel any more.

That's exactly what I mean (although I take offense to the "tel" part of
Wintel since there last year, Intel's market share fell to 46%.  AMD,
Cyrix/IBM, and IDT, you know...like my WinChip 2 powered PC with
a CPU a fraction of what Intel units cost).

What I meant is that buying the IIGS and owning everything about
its design and firmware means that a company would have the
one thing in its firmware that they could not get by just creating
a GUI themselves: the "Mac" GUI, with menu bar on top, windows,
etc.  Small things, but as you so like to point out, the GUI is the
one part where Macs are still distinct.

But if some company buys the IIGS and takes the GUI elements
from the firmware toolbox, it is not unthinkable that Microsoft
would gobble up that company.  Then it would be free to put the
Mac elements in Windows so that a user could choose between
a "Mac" organization of menus and windows and a Win 95
organization.  That would hurt Apple quite a bit.  Think about it for
a moment.  Win 95 allows you to choose between a Win 95 and
a Win 3.1 GUI organization.  Add Mac organization to it and it
would be a most flexible GUI.