Comment on What DID Apple innovate?

• darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  What do you think “improved” means in the OP?

  source

  • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    When paired with “innovate/innovation”, not “taking” something.

    source

    • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Taking a thing and then improving it to the point that it has massively larger appeal has value, innovative or not.

      source

      • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        But if it’s not innovative, then it’s not innovative, which was the question in the post title, lol

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That and other people were already working to use what PARC had developed.

  But I’ll give Apple the credit for being the first to implement a personal computer that made computing much more approachable, with the MAC.

  It was years before Windows had anything close in Windows 3.1, which frankly wasn’t actually all that close.

  NT 3.1 is probably the first Windows OS that had the consistency of Mac OS, with modern (non-DOS) underpinnings.

  And the reality is it was heavily influenced by the DEC Alpha system because MS had hired much of the Alpha team from DEC. Technet Mag had a great article about it circa 1996.

  source

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    3.1 was a kludge, 3.11 was a disaster. Windows didn’t come close to Mac like usability until Windows 95.

    Pretty much every other GUI was ahead of Windows until 95.

    source

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Agreed on the GUI.

      NT 3.1 at least had modern underpinnings, and using the Norton Desktop on it instead of the Windows Shell made it much like what we got with “Chicago” - the 95/Win2k UI.

      Wow, you got me thinking about that stuff and remembering Norton Desktop. I’d forgotten ever using it on NT back then. Gonna have to go look for a copy now.

      source