RE: Copland = OS/2

Dan Kohn (
Sun, 6 Oct 1996 14:14:34 -0700

Failing large technology companies never go bankrupt, they just get
bought by IBM.

- dan

Dan Kohn <>
Teledesic Corporation
+1-206-803-1411 (voice)   803-1404 (fax)

>---------- >From: Todd Kaloudis >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 1996 2:12 PM >To: Dan Kohn >Subject: RE: Copland = OS/2 > >let's start a pool for when they'll be bankrupt. > >---------- >From: Dan Kohn >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 1996 2:03 PM >To: Network >Cc: kcc >Subject: FW: Copland = OS/2 > >[* This is just getting pathetic. - dan *] > >Apple Copland OS May Orphan Old Apps > (10/4) > > > > By TOM ABATE > c.1996 San Francisco Examiner > > CUPERTINO, Calif. - In a daring move, Apple >Computer Inc. plans to > develop an operating system that would not be >hobbled by the requirement > to run all of today's Macintosh programs, but >would >be free to tap the power > of Apple's latest hardware. > > In an interview at Apple's headquarters, Chief >Technology Officer Ellen > Hancock outlined a two-prong plan: to extend >the >life of the current Mac > System 7.5 with periodic upgrades while >redesigning >Apple's > next-generation Copland operating system with a >new >objective. > > Hancock said she was willing to sacrifice >``backward compatibility'' - the > ability to run existing Mac programs - if that >was >the price of creating a more > powerful operating system. > > ``This may sound dramatically different, and in >some ways it is different,'' > Hancock said. ``If we have to pick between >backward >compatibility and new > functions, we're voting for new functions.'' > > An operating system controls the basic >functions of >a computer, and > regulates the functioning of the word >processing >and other programs that > people commonly use. Apple wants to develop an >operating system that > will be less prone to glitches, and will make >it >easier to run more than one > program at a time. > > The Copland project, which Apple first >announced in >spring 1994, was > supposed to add stability while allowing Mac >owners >to run their favorite > old programs. But Hancock, who joined Apple in >July, said it had proven > technically impossible to have it both ways. In >mid-August she halted > Copland development, but until outlining the >dual-track strategy, had not > indicated how the project might resume. > > ``When people said Copland was dead that is >inaccurate,'' Hancock said. > ``What we have done is shifted our thoughts'' >by >jettisoning the > compatibility requirement, which has already >put >Copland more than a year > past schedule. > > Industry observers called Hancock's plan a >gutsy >but risky move because > Apple will have to convince customers and >software >developers that the > new operating system - which has no delivery >date - >will be worth the > expense of buying or developing word >processors, >spreadsheets and other > programs. > > Henry Norr, an editor at San Francisco's >MacWeek >Magazine, said Apple > must provide more details about its plans to >get >customers excited about it. > > ``I was always of the camp that said they made >backward compatibility too > much of an issue,'' Norr said. ``If they >explain >the benefits of making a > break to get a powerful new architecture, I >think >developers will go along.'' > > Snn Wrixon, executive director of the Berkeley >Macintosh Users' Group > (BMUG), said she wasn't surprised Apple had >finally >admitted Copland > couldn't have it both ways. > > ``If I were them I'd do the same thing: cut my >losses and move ahead,'' > Wrixon said. But she said many of BMUG's 12,000 >users who have older > Macs ``will not be happy'' the new operating >system >will leave them > behind. > > Hancock said Apple hopes to calm these concerns >by >adding features to > System 7.5, and has already scheduled upgrades >for >January and July 1997. > > The two-prong strategy is a retreat for Apple, >especially compared to rival > Microsoft Corp., which managed to make its >Windows >95 operating system > run programs written for DOS and Windows 3.1. > > The strategy also poses risks that customers >and >software developers, who > won't be able to pop their old programs into >the >new operating system, > might defect from the Mac. > > ``One of the ways you hold on to users is with >backward compatibility,'' said > Steve Jasik, an Apple software developer in >Palo >Alto. ``If you have to get all > new software to run on the new operating system >the >expense could scare > you off.'' > > > >