Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You can do it Microsoft way: build Windows as a GUI for DOS, capture many users, earn a lot of money, then pay best developers to develop Windows NT and merge it into a new OS. (user experience first, architecture later).

But you can do it the Apple way: make it good from inside out - including architecture, wait loooooooong looooooooong until users recognize all this, then get maaaany users and earn lot of money. (Hopefully you have survived until then.)

If you have luck, you can have both: good architecture inside and very good user experience...

But anyway I agree with the author, that many many solutions are over-engineered instead of just simple...



what was good about OS9 :-)OK it gave Amiga users a good laugh back in the day.

NT was developed by ex VAX Guys from DEC


I believe you was talking about OS X.


Nope the poster was comparing Apple Developing Macs with Ms developing NT when MS started with NT Apple was on OS9 and stayed that way for years.


What the hell are you talking about? Windows NT was released in 1993, back when Apple was shipping System 7 and NeXT was shipping NeXTStep 3. Mac OS 9 didn't come out until 1999.


Actually I had Mach -> NeXTSTEP -> OS X in mind... :-)


>Nope the poster was comparing Apple Developing Macs with Ms developing NT when MS started with NT Apple was on OS9 and stayed that way for years.

Nope, the poster was comparing MS from _one era_ (when they developed NT) to Apple from _another era_ (when they developed OS X).

That is, contrasting those two transitions as different ways of building something.


oh so comapring two totaly diferent era's then?


Yes, the comparison is not about some era (what each company did at the same specified time) but about the methodology (how each company handled a specific transition to a different OS).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: