4 ms·
Tiny screens weren't a requirement. 14", 16", and 21" color displays were available since 1992, with resolutions of 640x480, 832x624, and 1152x870. A 1987 Mac I
by mietek 13y ago
Tiny screens weren't a requirement. 14", 16", and 21" color displays were available since 1992, with resolutions of 640x480, 832x624, and 1152x870. A 1987 Mac II supported up to 6 displays, forming a single desktop. Not too shabby, eh?
However, the OS was behind the times, lacking memory protection and preemptive multitasking. It is incredible how much wasted effort went into Pink, Taligent, and Copland...
- smacktoward 13y ago> It is incredible how much wasted effort went into Pink, Taligent, and Copland... Indeed. I remember reading Robert X. Cringely's book "Accidental Empires" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_Empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_Empires) back at that time, and in one chapter he looked over the Pink/Taligent/Copland debacle and predicted that no company would ever write a general-purpose operating system from scratch again, because doing so had just become too complicated. That seemed pretty far-fetched to me at the time, but it turned out he was more or less right. OS X is NeXTSTEP is Mach/BSD; Windows is NT; Android is Linux/Java. Every major OS project these days starts by picking up some earlier project and using it as a base. And those who tried to defy the prediction (cough Be cough) found out that it was true the hard way.
- yuhong 13y agoAt least there was no unethical attacks like the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco ended up being...