Hacker News Reader

Comment by krger | Hacker News Reader

>The huge list of projects from that era of Apple really shows how aimless they were.

Most of those projects involved active collaboration with other companies who were similarly aimless, so Apple was by no means alone in their aimlessness.

It's truly wild just how much time, effort, and money the various companies spent smelling each others' farts back in the 90s.

View on HN

The era was one of fits & starts, mainly because the basic things which could be done were done already, & pretty well — word processors, spreadsheets, databases, page design, software which fit needs, was powerful enough, & wasn't too buggy to use. The long hardware stall of the 80s (think about how the 6502 lasted, basically the same, for well over a decade, & how IBM was still selling an 8086 machine in '87) forced software makers to focus on quality products. What wasn't there yet, even with the improvements through the 90s, was enough grunt in the hardware to do the things that were significantly past those basics, & so there was a lot of "let's try this, let's try that" throwing things at the wall. There were great ideas, & shots at getting them right — contemporary interfaces still look sad beside NeXTSTEP, & the Newton wasn't approaching what it was supposed to be until near when it was axed. Companies don't just want to do bug fixes & incremental improvements; they want their customers to be excited about something, & the 90s churn had a lot to do with keeping people interested & invested.

> It's truly wild just how much time, effort, and money the various companies spent smelling each others' farts back in the 90s.

I wouldn't say they stopped doing it in the 90s, personally.

I guess you can also draw similarities to the MS/IBM joint venture that was OS/2, but that actually released products - even if MS dumped it for NT.

Oh, OS/2 Warp was fine. I even had it as my default OS for a while back then.

Team OS/2 Baby! I still wish I had the salmon polo from the Warp comdex push.

MS/IBM joint venture failed through Windows 3.0, which in turn apparently was kickstarted by one person in the company.

Yes, if I am not mistaken, this is one of the books that tells which person was it.

"Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to Reserved Microsoft Windows Api Functions (The Andrew Schulman Programming Series/Book and Disk"

https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/0201608340

Pity as SOM was much better alternative than COM, and OS/2 in general.

However that wasn't the only issue that nailed OS/2's destiny, higher hardware resources and lack of proper management direction from IBM side also played a big role.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com