On 2018-11-07 11:05 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os,

IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of
those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the
OS. mac OS

i didn't say macos was dos. i said microsoft copied macos to create
windows.

not amiga os,
and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful,
with windows '95.

Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use
settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was
essentially useless until 3.x.

win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said,
windows '95 was when it was actually usable.

Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11
for their businesses and some still use it to this day.

To control user access, you had to go
into DOS. But that was so limited in the early versions of DOS that any
attempt to limit access could be over-ridden during boot, something our
students found out almost immediately. From Win95 one, user access was
better controlled, but still easy to work around.

Windows NT was the first non-DOS version. It was a derivative of OS/2,
whose first version MS developed for IBM. Up to Windows 2000 IIRC, a
system folder was labelled OS/2

so far, so good.

There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both.
I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device
customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine,
and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable.

complete nonsense.

apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac
os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with
full documentation as to how to do it.

because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed,
doing things not possible on dos or windows.

That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac
to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating
system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In
other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what
Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to
upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions.

As was
Commodore's OS, but that's another story.

actually, not as much, but the key problem was it had very little
software available compared to mac, dos and windows. software
developers were not interested.

In comparison, sure. THAT is a correct statement especially the further
users got into the lifespan of a Commodore Amiga machine. However, fewer
titles does not translate into a machine being completely ignored by the
public or developers either.

--
SilverSlimer
Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights
Minds: @silverslimer