3 ms·
> License Windows NT from Microsoft and bolt a Mac-like interface onto it. Gosh, am I glad that that didn't happen. I wonder how serious of an option that real
by anyfoo 2y ago
> License Windows NT from Microsoft and bolt a Mac-like interface onto it.
Gosh, am I glad that that didn't happen. I wonder how serious of an option that really was, it seems wildly out of place compared to the other propositions, which are all reasonable.
- andrewf 2y agoApple bolted Carbon APIs onto NeXTSTEP/Mach, and Microsoft bolted the OS/2 Presentation Manager onto NT (https://virtuallyfun.com/2021/05/19/presentation-manager-for-windows-nt/ https://virtuallyfun.com/2021/05/19/presentation-manager-for...), so I'm not sure why bolting Carbon onto NT would be unreasonable.
- cnasc 2y agoIIRC from reading Showstopper, NT was intended to afford that sort of different frontend swapping. It just happened that Windows became the primary focus in the end.
- stg24 2y agoIt might have been necessary to stick with the NT 3.51 codebase. I think they broke the clean separation of the GUI from the rest of the OS in 4.0, which was launched that year, for performance reasons.
- lemoncucumber 2y agoGoogle for Mac OS X Server 1.0 screenshots... the UI was a bizarre mashup of classic Mac OS and NeXTSTEP, you can see they were part way through bolting a Mac-like interface on. When Mac OS X was eventually released it looked utterly different.