Genuine question.

I know they were the scrappy startup doing different cool things. But, what are the most major innovative things that they introduced, improved or just implemented that either revolutionized, improved or spurred change?

I am aware of the possibility of both fanboys and haters just duking it out below. But there’s always that one guy who has a fkn well-formatted paragraph of gold. I await that guy.

  • otp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think anything beginning with “They took” answers what OP is asking

    • darth_helmet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think “improved” means in the OP?

      • otp
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        When paired with “innovate/innovation”, not “taking” something.

        • darth_helmet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Taking a thing and then improving it to the point that it has massively larger appeal has value, innovative or not.

          • otp
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But if it’s not innovative, then it’s not innovative, which was the question in the post title, lol

            • ripcord@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Every innovation is built on top of other ideas. All of them.

              You’re getting hung up mostly on the word “took”. They could have said “started with”. But what was built was successful both by being innovative and well-executed.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That and other people were already working to use what PARC had developed.

      But I’ll give Apple the credit for being the first to implement a personal computer that made computing much more approachable, with the MAC.

      It was years before Windows had anything close in Windows 3.1, which frankly wasn’t actually all that close.

      NT 3.1 is probably the first Windows OS that had the consistency of Mac OS, with modern (non-DOS) underpinnings.

      And the reality is it was heavily influenced by the DEC Alpha system because MS had hired much of the Alpha team from DEC. Technet Mag had a great article about it circa 1996.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        3.1 was a kludge, 3.11 was a disaster. Windows didn’t come close to Mac like usability until Windows 95.

        Pretty much every other GUI was ahead of Windows until 95.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed on the GUI.

          NT 3.1 at least had modern underpinnings, and using the Norton Desktop on it instead of the Windows Shell made it much like what we got with “Chicago” - the 95/Win2k UI.

          Wow, you got me thinking about that stuff and remembering Norton Desktop. I’d forgotten ever using it on NT back then. Gonna have to go look for a copy now.