OT - RIP Steve Jobs
bassman2
eadg
"bassman2" <vince_an...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4ca00b7-ac62-4df4...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
What history am I missing out on?
--
SR
Derek Tearne
do people keep saying Leo Fender was historically important?".
So, what history are you missing out on? Oh, nothing really.
Apple marketed one of the first personal computers in the 1970's, well
before windows, or even DOS, and before IBM got into that area. Of the
early innovators in the area of micro/personal computers, Apple are the
only company which remains, or remains a player in that market. Radio
Shack TRS-80, Commodore, BBC micro, Sinclair, Heathkit - all gone. That
in itself is pretty historically significant.
In terms of the history of personal computing, your IBM/Microsoft thread
didn't start until 5 years later.
When microsoft/IBM were still mucking around with command lines, Apple
launched the macintosh, which had a GUI interface - again some years
before Microsoft followed that lead with Windows, and even more years
before Microsoft had a stable working product. And the macintosh is
still around.
One can argue, reasonably strongly[1], that without macintosh and its
GUI interface Microsoft would have taken longer to develop a working GUI
interface such as Windows, so in that regard Apple does have a direct
bearing on the system you use, even though you may not use any Apple
products.
There's the iPod, which is pretty much synonymous with MP3 player these
days, the iPad, which everyone seems to want, and the iPhone which is a
pretty important player in the smart phone market.
Apple is currently the largest technology company in the world based on
either revenue and profit.
There's some fairly meaty history there, both in terms of technology and
commerce. One could argue that Steve Jobs/Apple weren't the first in
any of these areas, and that is quite true, the same is equally true of
Microsoft.
Both companies are historically important in the area of personal
computing technology. Saying, as you have said, that choosing one
(either one) over the other nullifies the historical significance of the
other is like saying:
"I drive a Mazda, what history am I missing out on by not driving a
Ford?".
--- Derek
[1] The forerunner of the macintosh GUI - the research which came out of
XEROX/PARC - was well known to all the system/OS players of the time.
Apple, Commodore and Digital Research were all working on GUI interfaces
based on these concepts. Microsoft weren't, and didn't do so until all
of those companies had demonstrated the value of this kind of interface.
--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
d'Groove: 12 piece party/covers band http://www.dGroove.co.nz/
bassman2
> eadg <don'...@it.com> wrote:
> > "bassman2" <vince_angelon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
response..
Oci-One Kanubi
Of, to put it another way: there might not BE a windoze today, if
Apple hadn't demonstrated the clear superiority (not to mention the
practicabnility) of the GUI.
We might STILL be using a command-line interface on a text-based
display!
Les Cargill
> We might STILL be using a command-line interface on a text-based
> display!
>
--
Les Cargill
JustWait
gui. Thinking it was a fad that would fade fast.. Yeah, missed that call
good...
Oci-One Kanubi
> "bassman2" <vince_angelon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
computers have all flooded the market in response to an initial
product offering from Apple.
Sam Wilson
24x80 terminals. Actually they're mostly 52x80 and none of them is
green on black, but what the heck. I've got four windows of this
newsreader open, and they're all plain text but they're easier to use
than tin or rn (and than - akkht-phht - Google Groups). I've got two
browser windows, one with 4 tabs and one with, erm, lots of tabs, and
half a dozen text editor windows. So apart from the browser most of
what I'm doing is plain text based, but imagine doing that on a genuine
green screen monitor, or even a whole bank of them.
So what am I trying to say? That the command line interface is alive
and well, just released into a world of windows!
Sam
Les Cargill
> In article<j6n1ir$6f8$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 8:34 pm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> We might STILL be using a command-line interface on a text-based
>>> display!
>>>
>>
>> So.... what's *really* wrong with that?
>
> OK, so on this computer I have four (often many more) windows emulating
> 24x80 terminals. Actually they're mostly 52x80 and none of them is
> green on black, but what the heck.
as F<n> keys.
> I've got four windows of this
> newsreader open, and they're all plain text but they're easier to use
> than tin or rn (and than - akkht-phht - Google Groups). I've got two
> browser windows, one with 4 tabs and one with, erm, lots of tabs, and
> half a dozen text editor windows. So apart from the browser most of
> what I'm doing is plain text based, but imagine doing that on a genuine
> green screen monitor, or even a whole bank of them.
>
> So what am I trying to say? That the command line interface is alive
> and well, just released into a world of windows!
>
graphics mode ( I believe I conceded the "multi windows" point )
is somehow always superior.
> Sam
--
Les Cargill
Pt
After the Mac's were out for awhile I got a Performa 550.
That was a great machine for it's day.
Because of Apple's high cost I got a PC next.
Then a Mac G-4.
I'm back on PC's but you never know what the future holds.
You can't beat a good Apple.
Pt
Brian Running
> launched the macintosh, which had a GUI interface - again some years
> before Microsoft followed that lead with Windows, and even more years
> before Microsoft had a stable working product. And the macintosh is
> still around.
made it affordable and standard.
I think Apple's main contribution is not in the technical bits, it's
the idea that a computer doesn't have to be a techie/geeky thing, not
just a tool, it can also be both a thing that is usable to create
aesthetically-pleasing things, and an aesthetically-pleasing thing all
by itself. That's a very recent innovation for them, of course --
there was nothing aesthetically appealing about an Apple IIC, a Lisa,
or an early Mac. But I think it's really at the heart of the whole
Apple/Mac culture now, and it's clearly the heart of the iPod, iPad,
etc.
Maybe someday I'll buy an Apple product.
Paul Newton
MAC's are still the best IF you use a 'puter for Music-n-Media mostly.
Derek Tearne
> > When microsoft/IBM were still mucking around with command lines, Apple
> > launched the macintosh, which had a GUI interface - again some years
> > before Microsoft followed that lead with Windows, and even more years
> > before Microsoft had a stable working product. And the macintosh is
> > still around.
>
> Don't forget the mouse, too! Apple copped it from Xerox, but Apple
> made it affordable and standard.
microsoft have made, include the microsoft mouse, which was pretty much
the best mouse on the market for a while.
> I think Apple's main contribution is not in the technical bits, it's
> the idea that a computer doesn't have to be a techie/geeky thing, not
> just a tool, it can also be both a thing that is usable to create
> aesthetically-pleasing things, and an aesthetically-pleasing thing all
> by itself.
> That's a very recent innovation for them, of course --
> there was nothing aesthetically appealing about an Apple IIC, a Lisa,
> or an early Mac.
Although compared to the other computer hardware of the day they were
more aesthetically pleasing. The first macintosh did have the 'computer
as appliance' aspect that really was Steve Jobs vision. The current,
much more stylish, iMacs are a direct descendant of that vision.
> But I think it's really at the heart of the whole
> Apple/Mac culture now, and it's clearly the heart of the iPod, iPad,
> etc.
necessarily otherwise have a need for these products. That's part of
Steve Jobs genius. Not just 'computer as appliance' but 'computer as
object of desire'.
--- Derek
eadg
That may well be true but as Bill Hicks once said "...anyone
here in marketing tonight? Go and kill yourself"
--
SR
eadg
news:1k8rpz1.fyhe451v5zm5tN%de...@url.co.nz...
> eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> "bassman2" <vince_an...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f4ca00b7-ac62-4df4...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> >A man that has made history...Sad to see him go.
>>
>> Sad to see anyone go at that age. I'm a windoze user so
>> anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
>> What history am I missing out on?
>
> This statement is as weird as someone saying "I play Gibson
> Guitars, why
> do people keep saying Leo Fender was historically
> important?".
Only thing wierd here Mr Tearne is your sudden urge to link
computer programmers to musicians.
Patronising comments attributed to me from yourself about the
possible differences between Fender and Gibson basses are
insulting; arguing over a brand name says more about you than
me.
I'm getting the feeling you're more computer rather than
music savvy.
--
SR
Derek Tearne
> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1k8rpz1.fyhe451v5zm5tN%de...@url.co.nz...
> > eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "bassman2" <vince_an...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f4ca00b7-ac62-4df4...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> >> >A man that has made history...Sad to see him go.
> >>
> >> Sad to see anyone go at that age. I'm a windoze user so
> >> anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
> >> What history am I missing out on?
> >
> > This statement is as weird as someone saying "I play Gibson
> > Guitars, why
> > do people keep saying Leo Fender was historically
> > important?".
>
> Only thing wierd here Mr Tearne is your sudden urge to link
> computer programmers to musicians.
Well. This is a music related group. Music related analogies are,
surely, always appropriate. You asked what history you were missing out
on, it seemed to me reasonable to start with an analogy from the subject
area of this newsgroup - especially as it is such a close analogy.
> Patronising comments attributed to me from yourself about the
> possible differences between Fender and Gibson basses are
> insulting; arguing over a brand name says more about you than
> me.
Well, you can take it as being patronising, but honestly, asking what
history are you missing out on (with respect to Steve Jobs), is pretty
incredible.
Regardless of anyones opinions about Apple or their products, Steve Jobs
was one of the most prominent figures in the history of the
microcomputer revolution, and the microcomputer revolution is the single
thing which has changed our lives the most over the last half decade.
It's not all down to Steve, but he was a huge part of a huge part of
modern history.
> I'm getting the feeling you're more computer rather than
> music savvy.
I've been playing music for 40ish years, bass for 30+ years and working
with microcomputers for 26+ years - which is nearly as long as there
have been microcomputers. They are both an intrinsic part of my life -
and I can get quite passionate about both music and computers. Sad
really.
Now, let us get back to your original statement.
> >> I'm a windoze user so
> >> anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
> >> What history am I missing out on?"
I didn't use the musical instrument analogy lightly, or intentionally to
be patronising. It is almost the perfect analogy, to not use it would
have been remiss.
As I said I've been playing bass for 30something years, since 1977ish.
I have personally never owned a Fender bass, I've rarely ever even
played a Fender bass, and only ever picked up one I actually liked. I
have never owned a Fender amp.
If Leo Fender was mentioned in a historical context I could perhaps
justifiably make the statement that "anything Fender has no bearing on
my needs. What history am I missing out on?"
I think everyone here, Fender fan or not, would agree that this would
be, at best, a strange statement to make.
The reason I used that particular analogy is that Steve Jobs is, to the
personal computer industry almost *exactly* analogous to Leo Fender.
Steve didn't invent the PC, Leo didn't invent the electric guitar.
Both of them took existing emergent technologies, and used their own
vision to produce something that people really wanted to own, even
people who wouldn't have thought of (playing guitar/owning a computer)
in other circumstances.
If neither of them had been born we would still have a computer in every
home, and we would have an electric guitar in every band (I know neither
of these statements is pedantically correct, but hopefully you know what
I'm getting at).
What both Leo and Steve did was popularise, evangelise and make
available to a wider marketplace their products, and they made them
cool.
By making an affordable, easy to manufacture, and kind of cool and
modern looking (for the late 1940's) electric guitar, and then electric
bass guitar, he transformed popular music. Without this we'd still have
electric guitars in every band, but I suspect that electric guitars
would otherwise have remained more expensive for longer. So there
would, ultimately, have been fewer bands, especially at that
1950's/1960's watershed period where popular music had its growth spurt.
So much of that was to do with Leo. This remains true even if ones
opinion of Fender guitars is not high.
Now, someone playing a Gibson, or any non-Fender, guitar could (in the
same way as someone using a windows PC could) say "Hey, I don't use
products from that manufacturer, so that history is irrelevant to me".
In fact Gibson owners would have a stronger case as Gibson were making
guitars with pickups before Fender and would probably have brought out a
solid bodied electric guitar regardless, and were working on electric
bass instruments, as opposed to Microsoft who hadn't even started
thinking about their business yet.
However, I feel almost certain you would agree that to make that
statement would be almost wilfully ignorant of the importance of Leo
Fender to the development of the electric guitar and to music in
general.
In the same way, from my perspective of an ageing computer geek who's
first job was at a company making first generation intel based
microcomputers (which ran on CP/M, because microsoft hadn't brought
PC/MSDOS to market yet), and who also has next to him at or on his desk
an iMac, an HP windows PC and a Phil Jones briefcase (in case of musical
emergencies), your statement implied a lack of knowledge of a
fundamentally important part of the history of personal computing which
remains true *regardless* of what platform anyone chooses to use.
Asking what impact Steve Jobs has had is exactly like asking what impact
Leo Fender had, with the caveat that Steve Jobs has probably affected
more people directly than Leo - although given the impact of his
products on popular music Leo probably affected more people world wide
indirectly than Steve.
Either way they were both huge.
--- Derek
JustWait
family kitty cat, but if you want to do business.....
--D-y
Substitute "posting to a newsgroup" for "pictures of family kitty
cat".
Thank God I haven't had to use DOS in many, many moons, and that I
went to a Mac with a G5, shortly after the UNIX revolution.
Compared (and this isn't entirely "fair", as if Bill Gates deserves
"fair") to my old 1998 HP PC that regularly puked up its OS and
required hours and hours of re-installing ALL the software, the Mac
doesn't eat its own OS as it operates. Please don't bother making
excuses for anything prior to "7" or I will post the entire "I'm a
Mac" TV ad series <g>. Unix means being able to turn the computer
"off" if it totally freezes, and then turn it back on, and go on with
life-- compared to the disaster that a power-off often was in my old
PC experience. Yuck. And Power Point? Double yuck (and the Emperor is
buck naked, too).
On a prior point, the Apple mouse, prior to the Mighty Mouse or
whatever they call that thing, was a cripple, and you still have to
set preferences to get a right click for copying, etc. Luckily, since
it was a Mac, with my old G5's, I could just plug in most any old
mouse and it would work, right click and all. No hunting through
control panels and menus only to find that drivers didn't exist, etc.
etc.
Nope, I'm not one bit interested in being a geek; like I said, I had
plenty of experience on a 286 with "no" RAM and "no" memory, working
in WP51 to publish a 20+ page monthly newsletter that had national and
European content, back when we were still getting contributions by
surface mail. Let those who want to geek, geek! And yes, you PC geeks
are vastly more knowledgeable, and have vastly more control (kerning,
anyone?).
What Apple did was (finally) come up with a stable OS that was easy to
use, didn't blow itself to Hell at every available opportunity (while
that term paper's deadline was getting ever closer), and provide an
attractive viewing (not Modern Industrial Ugly) interface.
Steve Jobs? How much of the Apple pantheon he really "ideated", I
don't know or care to know-- but I don't think he did much with the
actual nuts and bolts (very open to correction). Seeing him idolized
does not square with his reputation as a really nasty, terroristic
supervisor, and his "business practices" seemingly will not exactly
pave his way to Heaven, nor will certain aspects of his "family life"
history.
Like everything else, admire the work, not "the man".
(One more on that "kitty cat" bullshit):
This goes back ten years or more, but a relative used to work for a
West Coast retailer. One of his duties was getting the
"roto" (advertising inclusion) into the Sunday paper every week.
At that time, "the graphics people were Mac, the money people were
PC", and he had to know both in order for the train to get to the
station on time.
Which one is actually "business"-- or IOW, what would the ads look
like without the pictures?
Not to mention the "bottom line" involved with all those kitty cat
pictures-- or don't you call that "business"?
When I open the refrigerator to get something out of it, the light is
on, and the fridge is cold. If not, I check the power, replace the
bulb if necessary, or call the repairman if needed. After that, I
don't even care if the stupid light goes off when I close the door or
not. I have better things to do than screw with refrigerators, even if
I'm just posting to a newsgroup.
--D-y
RichL
news:406ae578-afce-41c5...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Thank God I haven't had to use DOS in many, many moons, and that I
> went to a Mac with a G5, shortly after the UNIX revolution.
>
> Compared (and this isn't entirely "fair", as if Bill Gates deserves
> "fair") to my old 1998 HP PC that regularly puked up its OS and
> required hours and hours of re-installing ALL the software, the Mac
> doesn't eat its own OS as it operates. Please don't bother making
> excuses for anything prior to "7" or I will post the entire "I'm a
> Mac" TV ad series <g>.
computers both at home and at work and I've never had the experience of
having one that puked up its OS. The last time I had to go through that
experience, I was using Win 3.1! The only bad aspect of my Win XP
experience at work was that my boss insisted that everyone buy Dells and
most of them have shit their hard drives prematurely.
My main PCs at work and at home run Win 7 now, but I still use a handful of
dedicated boxes at the office that run XP.
I'm not a die-hard anti-Mac guy but being involved in technical work means
that I don't have options to run a lot of the software I need on Macs other
than using some sort of shell contrivance that seems to be counterproductive
to me.
> Steve Jobs? How much of the Apple pantheon he really "ideated", I
> don't know or care to know-- but I don't think he did much with the
> actual nuts and bolts (very open to correction).
canned him, then he saw the light: marketing is the future! <groan>
> Seeing him idolized
> does not square with his reputation as a really nasty, terroristic
> supervisor, and his "business practices" seemingly will not exactly
> pave his way to Heaven, nor will certain aspects of his "family life"
> history.
money charity-wise, unlike for instance Gates.
Les Cargill
> "--D-y" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:406ae578-afce-41c5...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Thank God I haven't had to use DOS in many, many moons, and that I
>> went to a Mac with a G5, shortly after the UNIX revolution.
>>
>> Compared (and this isn't entirely "fair", as if Bill Gates deserves
>> "fair") to my old 1998 HP PC that regularly puked up its OS and
>> required hours and hours of re-installing ALL the software, the Mac
>> doesn't eat its own OS as it operates. Please don't bother making
>> excuses for anything prior to "7" or I will post the entire "I'm a
>> Mac" TV ad series <g>.
>
> Well, my experience may not be typical, but I've had several Win
> XP-driven computers both at home and at work and I've never had the
> experience of having one that puked up its OS. The last time I had to go
> through that experience, I was using Win 3.1! The only bad aspect of my
> Win XP experience at work was that my boss insisted that everyone buy
> Dells and most of them have shit their hard drives prematurely.
>
> My main PCs at work and at home run Win 7 now, but I still use a handful
> of dedicated boxes at the office that run XP.
>
> I'm not a die-hard anti-Mac guy but being involved in technical work
> means that I don't have options to run a lot of the software I need on
> Macs other than using some sort of shell contrivance that seems to be
> counterproductive to me.
>
Nah. Macs run Windows now. it's spendy, but it's doable. And Mac
hardware is really high quality.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
--D-y
> "--D-y" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
Well, Bill Gates giving away money and taking the tax break is like
praying in public, if that's what happened. I mean, when you have
billions...
People are still running XP even though support is dead or dying; and
speaking of Dell, they did a massive retro-fit of XP as a new-computer
factory option when whatever the next crapola presentation from MS
didn't work.
Yup, even for some sorts of gaming (I'd have to ask my 12 year old),
the PC is still "king"-- however, I'm told that the Boot Camp "shell"
does enable a discreet Windows OS install on any newer Mac.
Given the RAM capacity (16G's) and terrabyte-capacity HD's in iMac's
(some HD's are .5 TB and more than 4G's of RAM does cost more), it
would seem to be possible to have a true "2-in-1" computer that
operates on UNIX. IOW, "contrivance" (implying a less than 100%
functional jury-rig) *might* not be the word.
I may never know as the boy lives with his mom and there will be no MS
OS on this machine or my other old G5 that is expiring anyhow (the
Vertical Line Syndrome).
Oh yeah, my HP puked its CD drive and its hard drive in less than five
years, too. Fixed cheap but dang! And I never did get the CD drive to
work correctly <g> again.
If I were deeper in the bux, I'd have some kind of well-researched PC
here, no doubt about it. Firewalls and all, for gaming (although the
boy is learning a lot from having to fiddle with getting things to
work-- Minecraft I think is the main rage these days) and for, simple
as this may sound, schoolwork and other "whatever" where lots of
printing is needed, because the two or three printers I've owned so
far did not have a "print light" feature when run from the Mac as they
did from the PC. Sorry, I forget what that was called but it did save
lots of ink especially when the urchins printed multiple pages with
vast areas of solid color and solid backgrounds.
I briefly went into "7" recently at Best Buy in order to attempt to
assist a family member get online via router. It was much easier to
find a path than in the old MS glop I used, and I did say I was making
an unfair comparison-- however, even if the thong is ended, the malady
lingers on!
--D-y
RichL
> Given the RAM capacity (16G's) and terrabyte-capacity HD's in iMac's
> (some HD's are .5 TB and more than 4G's of RAM does cost more), it
> would seem to be possible to have a true "2-in-1" computer that
> operates on UNIX. IOW, "contrivance" (implying a less than 100%
> functional jury-rig) *might* not be the word.
Well to clarify, by 'contrivance' I simply meant you've got one OS simulator
running on top of the actual OS, which basically means that your program is
talking to one thing which in turn is talking to another, which is
inherently less efficient. I put up with it at work with Win 7 and their
"XP mode", but fortunately I have only a couple of programs that need it.
I'm running all sorts of 3-D simulations and the like at the office where
speed is of the essence, and I can't have the thing bog down. And there
just aren't enough equivalent Mac versions of most of the software I use for
that, so I consider myself sort of stuck.
--D-y
> "--D-y" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
I've read "runs natively" to describe WIndows running on a Mac; a "mac
guy" (sales rep) told me "same-- you buy your copy of 7 and partition
the drive with Boot Camp, and install". Then you pick which OS to use
for the job at hand.
Freely confessing I've not done this and especially not done this in a
work environment where speed and a total lack of screw-ups are of the
essence. More RAM means less bogging down, in my limited experience.
BTW, both of my G5's crapped out-- motherboard problem in the 20", and
one screen failure (vertical line) in the original screen and now the
first vertical line has appeared in the second screen, bought used, in
the 17".
Hoping for better in this Mac; I understand durability was one reason
that Apple changed chip suppliers.
--D-y
DGDevin
"eadg" wrote in message
news:4e8e3c41$0$1723$c3e8da3$4e33...@news.astraweb.com...
> Sad to see anyone go at that age. I'm a windoze user so anything apple has
> no bearing on my needs.
My first PC came with an 8088 processor, a 20 megabyte hard drive and 5-1/4"
floppy drive, and I've had my share of fun mocking Apple over the years so
clearly I'm a PC person. But it would be foolish to pretend that Apple
wasn't the trailblazer in many respects. For a long time if you wanted to
work with music on a computer that meant you used a Mac, ditto desktop
publishing--areas where it took the PC/Windows awhile to catch up. I
recently tried using Windows Media Player instead of iTunes--I quickly went
back to iTunes as WMP is a disaster waiting to happen. I own two iPods
which I use all the time (exercising, yard work, in the garage, plugged into
the car steroeo, transporting music to other musicians so everybody can hear
the song they're supposed to learn), and my wife is crazy about her iPad
(although she is a Mac user). After years of cursing at various brands of
routers we recently got an Apple Airport Extreme--easiest piece of hardware
I ever installed, self-configuring would be a good description (much like
setting up the internet connection on a Mac). I'll never waste time on a
Linksys or D-Link router again.
One of the things Steve Jobs did was make elegant products that work for
people who don't want to become part-time computer techs, Apple's products
work like they are supposed to right out of the box. Macs tend to be more
expensive than PCs, but then they come with pretty much all the software
most people need pre-installed. There aren't nearly as many software titles
for Mac, but then many Mac software titles are the best available. Apple
didn't invent many of the things they were so successful with, but they made
them work in forms that consumers could easily operate which explains why so
many people fall in love with those products. Apple prospered until Jobs
left, then it got into trouble in the years in which he was gone, and it
prospered again when he returned. Meanwhile IBM is long out of the personal
computer business and if Microsoft can't transition to tablets they're going
to be in trouble down the road. I'd say Steve Jobs made one hell of a mark,
even if you don't own any of his products.
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:k_SdndgnL_BdVA3T...@supernews.com...
> Well, my experience may not be typical, but I've had several Win XP-driven
> computers both at home and at work and I've never had the experience of
> having one that puked up its OS.
I very much liked XP, I wish I'd stuck with it instead of "upgrading" to Win
7 which has been a pain in the ass.
> The only bad aspect of my Win XP experience at work was that my boss
> insisted that everyone buy Dells and most of them have shit their hard
> drives prematurely.
My last PC was a Dell, their flagship model in fact. I'll never buy another
Dell, if only because their proprietary parts cost twice as much as they
have any legitimate reason to.
> My impression is that he was more of a nuts and bolts guy before Apple
> canned him, then he saw the light: marketing is the future! <groan>
You still have to have something to market, and he had a knack for
announcing products that made everyone go, "Wow!"
> That's my impression as well. And apparently we was pretty stingy with
> his money charity-wise, unlike for instance Gates.
A friend of ours who has worked for Apple for a couple of decades recently
cashed in a bunch of stock options, you should see the house he bought. If
it's true that charity starts at home, Apple seems to do okay by its people.
Of course Jobs was a very private person, and if it's true that a supposedly
anonymous $150 million donation to a cancer treatment center in Calif.
actually came from him, maybe he just wasn't into milking his philanthropy
like some billionaires.
RichL
news:6uadnTCo8NfwlAzT...@earthlink.com...
>
>
> "RichL" wrote in message
> news:k_SdndgnL_BdVA3T...@supernews.com...
>
>
>> Well, my experience may not be typical, but I've had several Win
>> XP-driven computers both at home and at work and I've never had the
>> experience of having one that puked up its OS.
>
> I very much liked XP, I wish I'd stuck with it instead of "upgrading" to
> Win 7 which has been a pain in the ass.
I like Win 7 just fine, I probably had a shorter learning curve on that than
I had for several previous Win releases.
I *did* make it a point to get the "professional" edition, 64 bit version,
for both office and home. I don't know whether that made a difference at
all. My only long-lasting complaint is the damned mail/newsreader, Win Live
Mail, which pales in comparison with Outlook Express.
DGDevin
"RichL" wrote in message
news:usKdnS9qZ97DlgzT...@supernews.com...
>> I very much liked XP, I wish I'd stuck with it instead of "upgrading" to
>> Win 7 which has been a pain in the ass.
> I like Win 7 just fine, I probably had a shorter learning curve on that
> than I had for several previous Win releases.
> I *did* make it a point to get the "professional" edition, 64 bit version,
> for both office and home. I don't know whether that made a difference at
> all. My only long-lasting complaint is the damned mail/newsreader, Win
> Live Mail, which pales in comparison with Outlook Express.
I have the same version. The jacked-up mail/news software is a big part of
it. It was fine, then they messed it up and they know everyone hates it but
they haven't fixed it. But I've had other problems, Windows Media Player
being one--a complete waste of time. Things appearing and disappearing from
the desktop and taskbar are another issue. Older software which I relied on
no longer working (including titles from Microsoft) is a big issue. Older
hardware no longer working, at least until third parties came out with
64-bit drivers (which took ages) is yet another issue.
I had no problems with XP, worked just fine and I knew how to do everything
and all my hardware and software worked perfectly. If I'd done a little
more research into Win 7 I would have just had the shop that built my new
machine load my XP Pro onto it, would have saved me a lot of aggravation.
--D-y
I got a bad free download of Lion for my new(ish) (refurb) Mac that
didn't come with Lion. OW! BAD! Mail went nuts, Safari didn't work,
hell on Earth and I'm just a casual user. Good thing I didn't have to
show progress in the workplace!
I still had a working "old" computer, so I found out how to
exterminate Lion, and copy the old 'puter onto the new one, so to
speak.
Lion is cool, if it works, and I may go t Lion at some point. One app
I like (Toast Titanium 6) won't work on Lion, and there might be other
stuff that I can't remember, too (having blanked all that
unpleasantness out, don't you know!).
So here I am happy with ol' Snow Leopard again. As my computer teacher
from the local Community College informed us: "What is the best
software??? It's the software YOU KNOW HOW TO USE!
Worth all the effort for that whole semester and more, right there.
But what about support for XP-- is that an issue for those who would
like to keep what they know?
Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS <g>.
--D-y
Les Cargill
> On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
> of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS<g>.
> --D-y
DOS wasn't broken.
--
Les Cargill
Paul Newton
> On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin" <DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"RichL" wrote in message
>>
>>news:usKdnS9qZ97DlgzT...@supernews.com...
Viruses are mostly designed for Windows. Not so much for Macs, as so few
people use them comparatively.
My Abacuss can NOT be touched by an outside source, as well as my type
writer.
Steve is idead in a iCasket in the iGround
Let him rest in iPeace.
Paul Newton
Can't break what never worked? :)
Les Cargill
Something like that.
I mean that a constraint is not a defect.
--
Les Cargill
Gary Rosen
> My point is that there is this great unexamined assumption that
> graphics mode ( I believe I conceded the "multi windows" point )
> is somehow always superior.
That gives me a great idea - I will make billions of dollars
by inventing command-line YouTube!
- Gary Rosen
Derek Tearne
> --D-y wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
> > of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS<g>.
>
> DOS wasn't broken.
It also wasn't particularly good, at any point in its history, compared
to the other things on offer, and I'm not even thinking of Macintosh
here.
DGDevin
"--D-y" wrote in message
news:3724225d-f5c4-4948...@u6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> So here I am happy with ol' Snow Leopard again. As my computer teacher
> from the local Community College informed us: "What is the best
> software??? It's the software YOU KNOW HOW TO USE!
Good point, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
> But what about support for XP-- is that an issue for those who would
> like to keep what they know?
I was under the impression XP will be supported with security updates etc.
until 2014. There are more XP installations out there than Win 7, they'd be
foolish to cut support too soon.
JustWait
Well, we started our business with Dos, worked fine for us...
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> --D-y wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
>>> of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS<g>.
>>
>> DOS wasn't broken.
>
> It also wasn't particularly good, at any point in its history, compared
> to the other things on offer, and I'm not even thinking of Macintosh
> here.
>
> --- Derek
>
>
better than what replaced it.
--
Les Cargill
eadg
> eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1k8rpz1.fyhe451v5zm5tN%de...@url.co.nz...
>> > eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "bassman2" <vince_an...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:f4ca00b7-ac62-4df4...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >A man that has made history...Sad to see him go.
>> >>
>> >> Sad to see anyone go at that age. I'm a windoze user so
>> >> anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
>> >> What history am I missing out on?
>> >
>> > This statement is as weird as someone saying "I play
>> > Gibson
>> > Guitars, why
>> > do people keep saying Leo Fender was historically
>> > important?".
>>
>> Only thing wierd here Mr Tearne is your sudden urge to
>> link
>> computer programmers to musicians.
>
> Well. This is a music related group.
And Steve Jobs' relevance to this group?
>> Patronising comments attributed to me from yourself about
>> the
>> possible differences between Fender and Gibson basses are
>> insulting; arguing over a brand name says more about you
>> than
>> me.
>
> Well, you can take it as being patronising, but honestly,
> asking what
> history are you missing out on (with respect to Steve
> Jobs), is pretty
> incredible.
I give spam a wide berth. The 'history' you mention is merely
apple's marketing approach to merchandising a product AFAICS.
It does'nt help he never played bass. How can he possibly
help me?
> Regardless of anyones opinions about Apple or their
> products, Steve Jobs
> was one of the most prominent figures in the history of the
> microcomputer revolution, and the microcomputer revolution
> is the single
> thing which has changed our lives the most over the last
> half decade.
"Regardless of anyones opinions"...utter bollocks Derek. A
clearer example of sucking Satans cock* I've seen so far on
here.
--
SR
* google it with '+bill hicks'
Derek Tearne
> Derek Tearne wrote:
> > Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >
> >> --D-y wrote:
> >>> On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
> >>> of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS<g>.
> >>
> >> DOS wasn't broken.
> >
> > It also wasn't particularly good, at any point in its history, compared
> > to the other things on offer, and I'm not even thinking of Macintosh
> > here.
>
> I can think of a dozen cases where it was significantly
> better than what replaced it.
If you mean windows, then yeah.
However, compared to, say, Concurrent DOS, or Xenix - both of which I
was using on essentially the same hardware at the same time (pre-windows
mid 80's), it was a pile of steaming crap.
Worst of all was the 640k memory limit - completely unnecessary and
caused so many problems. So, actually, DOS was quite fundamentally
broken at the rather important memory access level.
Derek Tearne
> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1k8tmra.1hr5z3z2eyxo6N%de...@url.co.nz...
> > Well. This is a music related group.
>
> And Steve Jobs' relevance to this group?
Oh, for goodness sake. I didn't start the thread, I responded to your,
apparently honest, question.
> > Well, you can take it as being patronising, but honestly,
> > asking what history are you missing out on (with respect to
> > Steve Jobs), is pretty incredible.
>
> I give spam a wide berth. The 'history' you mention is merely
> apple's marketing approach to merchandising a product AFAICS.
> It does'nt help he never played bass. How can he possibly
> help me?
Oh stuff and nonsense. Writing off the CEO and visionary behind the
largest publically traded company in the world, and the largest
technology company in the world by profit or revenue as just 'marketing
hype' is... I really don't know the word. Especially as Steve Jobs
doesn't has never appeared prominently in Apples marketing, any more
than Bill Gates has. We know their names because, well, they are
important figures.
And what does his relationship directly to you have to do with his
historical significance?
Martin Luther King had absolutely no direct impact on my life. As far
as I'm aware he never played bass. His legacy does not help me play
bass or do anything else in my life.
To say "I'm white and not American, what history am I missing out on?"
would be pretty specious don't you think?
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Derek Tearne wrote:
>>> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --D-y wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 11:16 pm, "DGDevin"<DGDe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Without making a compensatory comment IRT Apple, MS has a long history
>>>>> of not fixing things. Like, for instance, DOS<g>.
>>>>
>>>> DOS wasn't broken.
>>>
>>> It also wasn't particularly good, at any point in its history, compared
>>> to the other things on offer, and I'm not even thinking of Macintosh
>>> here.
>>
>> I can think of a dozen cases where it was significantly
>> better than what replaced it.
>
> If you mean windows, then yeah.
>
> However, compared to, say, Concurrent DOS, or Xenix - both of which I
> was using on essentially the same hardware at the same time (pre-windows
> mid 80's), it was a pile of steaming crap.
>
*fairly* stable real-time operation. Myself and people I
worked with did a lot of things where we'd write something
that ran off the real-time clock and do some fairly
clever things. We'd jack the tick clock up to 10x (or faster) and
count down the interrupt to call the original ISR.
I even wrote a very rudimentary kernel that ran on top of DOS
(with an event layer that ran on top of that).
We looked at Xenix, but this was cheaper ( and it was
kind of a skunk works thing ).
Once we got this all working, we'd port it to a custom
hardware platform. Or in some cases, we'd just ship a
PC in custom packaging.
It was all a heck of a lot of fun, the stuff was darn
near provably correct, and we rarely had any
reported defects.
> Worst of all was the 640k memory limit - completely unnecessary and
> caused so many problems. So, actually, DOS was quite fundamentally
> broken at the rather important memory access level.
>
never turned out to be a real problem for anything we used it for.
> --- Derek
>
--
Les Cargill
Derek Tearne
> Derek Tearne wrote:
It did turn out to be a real problem for some people though.
Regardless, having to, effectively, have three methods of addressing
RAM, two of which are kludgy workarounds for a stupid arbitrary decision
by some really lazy and short sighted person, was really not a good
solution.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Derek Tearne wrote:
>
>>> Worst of all was the 640k memory limit - completely unnecessary and
>>> caused so many problems. So, actually, DOS was quite fundamentally
>>> broken at the rather important memory access level.
>>
>> There was expanded memory once the hardware supported it. This
>> never turned out to be a real problem for anything we used it for.
>
> It did turn out to be a real problem for some people though.
>
Yer $3k machine now costs $30k. Use it in good health.
> Regardless, having to, effectively, have three methods of addressing
> RAM, two of which are kludgy workarounds for a stupid arbitrary decision
> by some really lazy and short sighted person, was really not a good
> solution.
>
> --- Derek
>
It wasn't actually arbitrary, Derek. Indeed, there was nothing
arbitrary about it.
--
Les Cargill
Derek Tearne
> *Ahem*.
>
> It wasn't actually arbitrary, Derek. Indeed, there was nothing
> arbitrary about it.
Well, I've heard several people try and explain exactly why 640k was
considered just the perfect address for that graphics card, but I've yet
to hear one that really sounded compelling.
I'm sure it's not *quite* as simple as Bill Gates saying '640k should be
enough for anyone[1]', but there were other more sensible future proofed
solutions.
Seeing as I was using computers at the time, doing the same graphics
routines *and* addressing the full 1mb of memory, it certainly wasn't
the only choice.
And even if they thought fairly carefully considered decision,
ultimately it was a pretty stupid and extremely short-sighted one.
However, I think we really are getting beyond the charter of the
newsgroup here. Oh, and while it was DOS that suffered, it was the
hardware folks at IBM who were likely to blame.
--- Derek
[1] Especially as it wasn't his decision.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill<lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> *Ahem*.
>>
>> It wasn't actually arbitrary, Derek. Indeed, there was nothing
>> arbitrary about it.
>
> Well, I've heard several people try and explain exactly why 640k was
> considered just the perfect address for that graphics card, but I've yet
> to hear one that really sounded compelling.
>
said "so let it be written, so let it be done!" A meg o'
memory was one or two months salary then...
*That* was arbitrary, but not a Microsoft decision...
Since the BIOS had assumptions in it about where the
video adapters were...
The PC was the redheaded stepchild of IBM, anyway. Everyone
who touched it there was end of career.
> I'm sure it's not *quite* as simple as Bill Gates saying '640k should be
> enough for anyone[1]', but there were other more sensible future proofed
> solutions.
>
> Seeing as I was using computers at the time, doing the same graphics
> routines *and* addressing the full 1mb of memory, it certainly wasn't
> the only choice.
>
started it at 0xD0,000 instead of 0xA0,000. Maybe 0xE0,000 if EGA only
took the one block ( I just don't recall, and the book is packed ).
An unstated principle of engineering is: "A mistake once
made must be propagated forward at all cost, especially if
it means we need more people."
> And even if they thought fairly carefully considered decision,
> ultimately it was a pretty stupid and extremely short-sighted one.
>
> However, I think we really are getting beyond the charter of the
> newsgroup here.
> Oh, and while it was DOS that suffered, it was the
> hardware folks at IBM who were likely to blame.
>
> --- Derek
>
> [1] Especially as it wasn't his decision.
>
--
Les Cargill
eadg
>
>> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1k8tmra.1hr5z3z2eyxo6N%de...@url.co.nz...
>
>> > Well. This is a music related group.
>>
>> And Steve Jobs' relevance to this group?
>
> Oh, for goodness sake. I didn't start the thread, I
> responded to your,
> apparently honest, question.
musical reference.
>
>> > Well, you can take it as being patronising, but
>> > honestly,
>> > asking what history are you missing out on (with respect
>> > to
>> > Steve Jobs), is pretty incredible.
>>
>> I give spam a wide berth. The 'history' you mention is
>> merely
>> apple's marketing approach to merchandising a product
>> AFAICS.
>> It does'nt help he never played bass. How can he possibly
>> help me?
>
> Oh stuff and nonsense. Writing off the CEO and visionary
> behind the
> largest publically traded company in the world, and the
> largest
> technology company in the world by profit or revenue as
> just 'marketing
> hype' is... I really don't know the word. Especially as
> Steve Jobs
> doesn't has never appeared prominently in Apples marketing,
> any more
> than Bill Gates has. We know their names because, well,
> they are
> important figures.
your point of view is.
>
> And what does his relationship directly to you have to do
> with his
> historical significance?
to agb.
> Martin Luther King had absolutely no direct impact on my
> life. As far
> as I'm aware he never played bass. His legacy does not
> help me play
> bass
>
> missing out on?"
> would be pretty specious don't you think?
--
SR
Derek Tearne
> Owning bucket loads of cash makes you important? How shallow
> your point of view is.
*achievements*, not his wealth, that is merely an indicator of the
success and impact of said achievements... That's the way of things at
the moment, and it has been so for a while. Rockefeller, Carnegie,
Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, Nobel...
These are people who amassed huge fortunes in a capitalist fashion.
It would be hard to deny their historical importance. Although in a
couple of cases we've forgotten the way those fortunes were amassed and
only remember the philanthropy which eventually followed.
> > And what does his relationship directly to you have to do
> > with his historical significance?
>
> That's what I stated - he or apple have no relevance to me or
> to agb.
> Comparing MLK to Gates or Jobs is specious Derek.
because he has no direct impact on ones life is pretty poor form?
What is the direct relevance to you or agb of Martin Luther King?
Very little I would suspect.
This does not negate the fact that he was an important historical
figure.
Steve Jobs/Apple have directly affected a fair percentage of the
population of industrialised nations. To question their historical
significance because you happen to be one of the few who haven't been
directly or indirectly affected is weird.
It is a bit like questioning the historical significance of Volkswagen
or Ford because you drive a different car.
Or, to get back to my original analogy, questioning the historical
significance of Leo Fender because you play a different kind of bass.
History is not about you. It's about everybody.
Steve Jobs has no direct significance to you, fair enough.
He *has* direct significance to a fair percentage of your peers.
Arguably equivalent to Henry Ford, or Ferdinand Porsche - and I seem to
recall you are based in the UK - so direct influence of Steve Jobs on
your peers is arguably greater than Martin Luther King.
History is about the significance of an event or historical figure on
society as a whole, not on any individuals.
In that regard Steve Jobs counts as a historical figure in the history
of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Exactly how important only time will tell.
eadg
> eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> Owning bucket loads of cash makes you important? How
>> shallow
>> your point of view is.
>
> Ignoring for a moment the fact that I started out by
> listing his
> *achievements*, not his wealth,
Yes, two or three posts ago, then to cut to the chase you
resorted to someone's wealth to prop up up your misguided
views on modern history;
> that is merely an indicator of the
> success and impact of said achievements... That's the way
> of things at
> the moment, and it has been so for a while. Rockefeller,
> Carnegie,
> Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, Nobel...
>
> These are people who amassed huge fortunes in a capitalist
> fashion.
Get away!!!
>
> It would be hard to deny their historical importance.
No, it would'nt. Quite easy in fact ime, but I'm discounting
how big their fortune is, unlike yourself it seems.
--
SR
Derek Tearne
> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1k8yujs.16sx7s1xcerafN%de...@url.co.nz...
>
> Yes, two or three posts ago, then to cut to the chase you
> resorted to someone's wealth to prop up up your misguided
> views on modern history;
Misguided views on modern history?
What figures would you consider important to modern history?
Obviously not - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Howard Hughes, Henry Ford, Alfred
Nobel...
> > It would be hard to deny their historical importance.
>
> No, it would'nt. Quite easy in fact ime, but I'm discounting
> how big their fortune is, unlike yourself it seems.
Seriously?
Each of those men, to a lesser or greater extent, helped shape the 20th
century.
I think I should amend my earlier answer to a much simpler one.
Q: What history am I missing out on?
A: Er, most of it.
If you don't think that the things most of these guys did on the
way to amassing their fortunes, or the things (some) of them did
in terms of philanthopy are of historical significance.
Pretty much the only way you can discount the effect those guys had as a
group on modern history is to deny huge chunks of modern history.
For sure, our worldwide dependence on oil and ubiquity of oil powered
vehicles would probably have still occurred without Rockefeller or Ford,
but they were the guys who did it.
Modern industry might still have limped along without Carnegies
use/adaptation of the bessemer steel making process, and other
innovations, but he was the man who did it. Without Hughes we'd still
have planes, films etc. Without Nobel the bloodshed that arose from
his invention of powerful explosives would still have happened, but he
was the man who "became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster
than ever before". He also got guilt tripped into used the whopping
profits from all that death to fund the Nobel prizes for
Science/Literature/Peace etc.
I feel almost certain you will have heard of those at least.
eadg
> eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
>
>> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1k8yujs.16sx7s1xcerafN%de...@url.co.nz...
>>
>> Yes, two or three posts ago, then to cut to the chase you
>> resorted to someone's wealth to prop up up your misguided
>> views on modern history;
>
> Misguided views on modern history?
Yes. You were the one to mention wealth/historical value in
the same sentence.
>
> What figures would you consider important to modern
> history?
Bill Shankly, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, George Orwell...
>
> Obviously not - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Howard Hughes, Henry
> Ford, Alfred
> Nobel...
Depends on how much emphasis you place on someone's worth.
> Each of those men, to a lesser or greater extent, helped
> shape the 20th
> century.
You could say that about anybody. The people who shaped the
20th century are those that lived through it, and I have a
count of 48 years.
>
> I think I should amend my earlier answer to a much simpler
> one.
> Q: What history am I missing out on?
> A: Er, most of it.
You are barmy Derek - it's not even history. Jobs has only
just died, this is the 21st century. Believe me, when experts
on modern history are arguing the toss 90 years hence Jobs
will have vanished.
--
SR
eadg
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
> "eadg" wrote in message
> news:4e8e3c41$0$1723$c3e8da3$4e33...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>> Sad to see anyone go at that age. I'm a windoze user so
>> anything apple has no bearing on my needs.
Ah, but with respect, you...
> own two iPods which I use all the time (exercising, yard
> work, in the garage, plugged into the car steroeo,
> transporting music to other musicians so everybody can hear
> the song they're supposed to learn), and my wife is crazy
> about her iPad (although she is a Mac user).
I have no apple products, especially itunes. I think my Cowan
mp3 gizmo will beat the crap out of any apple product but
that's just me.
Same with pcs; I prefer to make my own. The apple brand is
the latest incarnation of the Emperor's new clothes fable.
--
SR
Derek Tearne
> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1k8z8jq.d5hcb54x4xc4N%de...@url.co.nz...
> > eadg <don't...@it.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> news:1k8yujs.16sx7s1xcerafN%de...@url.co.nz...
> >>
> >> Yes, two or three posts ago, then to cut to the chase you
> >> resorted to someone's wealth to prop up up your misguided
> >> views on modern history;
> > What figures would you consider important to modern
> > history?
>
> Bill Shankly, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, George Orwell...
Bill Shankly? For real? I had to google...
Really, putting Bill Shankly on the same level as Henry Ford, who was
instrumental in developing mass production, which is pretty much at the
root of modern industrial society (for better or worse), is a pretty big
stretch.
You'll be invoking George Best next.
> > Obviously not - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Howard Hughes, Henry
> > Ford, Alfred
> > Nobel...
>
> Depends on how much emphasis you place on someone's worth.
In those cases it's not so much the wealth those people amassed, it's
what they did to amass it. Each one transformed the world by one or
more major technological advances or discoveries. Rockefeller fuelled
modern history, including the automobiles built using Henry Fords mass
production techniques, Carnegie and his industrial empire made the steel
that built the machines powered by Rockefellers oil. Alfred Nobel made
the dynamite which made it possible to extract the materials used to
build the modern industrial world, and also used to tear apart europe
and beyond in major military conflicts.
Imagine the modern world without affordable cars, oil, stuff made from
steel, and safe explosives.
For sure, there are important figures in social history also, Ghandi
absolutely, Rosa Parks is also a major social figure. No question
about that.
Consider Rosa parks. By sitting down on that bus, and creating the
spark the ignited the civil rights movement, she directly affected the
lives of approximately 20% of the US population - and to a lesser extent
the rest.
Compare that with Steve Jobs. Apple computers, which are only part of
his influence on modern society, represent somewhere above 20% of the US
computer owning population, which is somewhere around 80%
So, in terms of people directly affected, which appeared to be your
metric for historical importance, these are roughly equivalent.
Now, personally, I'd count Rosa Parks as more important, even though she
actually did very little. And of course Ghandi counts as a huge
historical figure whether you're considering economic or social history.
> > I think I should amend my earlier answer to a much simpler
> > one.
> > Q: What history am I missing out on?
> > A: Er, most of it.
>
> You are barmy Derek - it's not even history. Jobs has only
> just died, this is the 21st century. Believe me, when experts
> on modern history are arguing the toss 90 years hence Jobs
> will have vanished.
I really doubt it. They are going to be talking about the
computer/internet age in the same way they talk about the industrial
revolution.
Jobs and Gates will likely be there on the lists in the same way that
Brunel, Watt and Brunel are.
Bill Shankly, on the other hand, will be totally forgotten.
JustWait
Rockefeller, Henry Ford, John Glenn, Nobel... etc...
Oci-One Kanubi
> > "Derek Tearne" <de...@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:1k8z8jq.d5hcb54x4xc4N%de...@url.co.nz...
I'm with Derek on this one. Jobs and Gates have been the two primary
drivers of a transformative period of human history -- as
transformative as the agricultural revolution and the industrial
revolution.
We just don't have the perspective to see that yet, because the
information revolution is far from finished; just look at the huge
percentage of the population walking around the supermarket and even
driving (attempting to drive) their cars while engaged in
conversations with people miles away. Look at the way any business
operates, and look at the leisure-time activities on 90% of the
couches in America. Things are really, really different from the way
they were in my childhood in the '50s, and the transition is still 50
or a hundred years from complete.
Technology advances at a geometric rate. There were100.000 years
between the devlopment of language and tool use, and the agricultural
revolution, then 12,000 years between the ag revolution and the
industrial revolution, then ~400 years between the industrial
revolution and the information revolution, and you can extrapolate a
mere 100 years or so between the peak of the info revolution and the
peak of the biomedical revolution, which has already begun. It will
take the perspective of a couple hundred years to really see the
importance of the information revolution, but with the biomedical
revolution already under way, some people alive today may still be
alive then.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Les Cargill
<snip>
> drivers of a transformative period of human history -- as
> transformative as the agricultural revolution and the industrial
> revolution.
>
the revolution was. The transformative parts of this
revolution had little to do with what they sold,
anyway - modulo digital publishing and office
tools.
We heard more about those because those were the tools
journalists used.
The great mass of impact on the economy of digital
electronics has been more in the direction of embedded
devices replacing mechanical devices. GPS alone has
probably revolutionized human activity more than the cell
phone.
We do this, though - we find a single person
to use to anthropomorphize a very complicated
phenomenon.
> We just don't have the perspective to see that yet, because the
> information revolution is far from finished; just look at the huge
> percentage of the population walking around the supermarket and even
> driving (attempting to drive) their cars while engaged in
> conversations with people miles away.
> Look at the way any business
> operates, and look at the leisure-time activities on 90% of the
> couches in America. Things are really, really different from the way
> they were in my childhood in the '50s, and the transition is still 50
> or a hundred years from complete.
>
way. This is a huge driver for real estate, as it turns out. Old
Craftsman homes with big porches in "walkable" neighborhoods,
that sort of thing. They even build apartment based neighborhoods
that emulate that experience now.
> Technology advances at a geometric rate. There were100.000 years
> between the devlopment of language and tool use,
> and the agricultural
> revolution,
If the agricultural revolution means what I think you
mean by it ( the formation of Egypt & the civilizations on the Tigris
and Euphrates )it was driven by shifts in the availability of food,
which were driven by drying and warming of climate.
There were others - crop rotation in the 14th
century, color chemistry & mechanized farming in the 19th... but
the great mass of human existence has been hunter-gatherer.
The changes in the 19th were, IMO, the most profound.
> then 12,000 years between the ag revolution and the
> industrial revolution, then ~400 years between the industrial
> revolution and the information revolution, and you can extrapolate a
> mere 100 years or so between the peak of the info revolution and the
> peak of the biomedical revolution, which has already begun.
will probably not see as much change. Someone from 1850 would
have seen even more than someone from 1900.
> It will
> take the perspective of a couple hundred years to really see the
> importance of the information revolution, but with the biomedical
> revolution already under way, some people alive today may still be
> alive then.
>
> -Richard, His Bassic Travesty
--
Les Cargill
Brian Running
> information revolution is far from finished;
I feel strongly both ways, as usual. Sure, Steve Jobs was a visionary
and had a big impact on the computer and personal electronics
business. But just as sure, his impact is being vastly overblown by
the legions of his cult followers, those same people that treat the
whole Mac vs. PC thing as a religious holy war.
I think it's just as likely that with the benefit of perspective,
we'll see that Mr. Jobs was primarily a master at separating those
quasi-religious fanatics from their money.
DGDevin
"eadg" wrote in message
news:4e94e122$0$16902$c3e8da3$fb48...@news.astraweb.com...
> Same with pcs; I prefer to make my own. The apple brand is the latest
> incarnation of the Emperor's new clothes fable.
drives, optical drives, video/audio cards, RAM--so I'm not afraid to open
the case. But as I said, the Mac appeals to people who don't want to do
that kind of stuff, they just want it to work out of the box. Combine that
with some outstanding software and the Mac is a highly attractive product.
Derek Tearne
> I think it's just as likely that with the benefit of perspective,
> we'll see that Mr. Jobs was primarily a master at separating those
> quasi-religious fanatics from their money.
I have a microsoft keyboard connected to a macintosh computer, and for a
while had the spare apple keyboard connected to a windows computer.
Does this make me a dangerous quasi heretic?
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
eadg
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
That may well be true but I can't afford to gamble with the
price apple are asking for a pc. I suspect it's marketing
ploy is to maintain it's high retail price.
My bits and pieces pc does all I ask at a fraction of the
cost and is still going strong
--
SR
*
IANAE but it's basic stuff to buy the parts and fit them
together, even I can do it!
Brian Running
No. There are lots of other things that make you a dangerous quasi
heretic, but not that. :-)
DGDevin
"eadg" wrote in message
news:4e963bff$0$30551$c3e8da3$40cd...@news.astraweb.com...
> That may well be true but I can't afford to gamble with the price apple
> are asking for a pc.
What gamble? Mac purchasers know exactly what they're buying, I don't get
the use of the word "gamble". And remember that the software most PC users
have to buy separately comes with a Mac, and their software tends to be
pretty good. When I "upgraded" to Windows 7 on my new PC some software I'd
already bought from Microsoft became unusable, requiring me to go buy new
software--so the hardware was cheaper but the software sure wasn't.
> I suspect it's marketing ploy is to maintain it's high retail price.
Delivering what their customers want is a ploy? Like the character said in
the movie, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
> My bits and pieces pc does all I ask at a fraction of the cost and is
> still going strong
That's cool, the PC has always been cheaper due to it being an open design.
But some consumers have a different set of needs, and some are very
demanding professional users too. Different strokes and all that.
Brian Running
> But some consumers have a different set of needs, and some are very
> demanding professional users too. Different strokes and all that.
Well, maybe it's different where you are - I bet not - but the
passionate, feverish, quasi-religious devotion of Mac fans to Macs is
not based on rational needs. Those people are not objective in their
arguments in favor of the Mac, and their needs are not, either. Look
at what actual professionals are using, the ones that really do make
rational, objective choices, and the large majority of them are using
PCs. Even in the music and graphic arts fields. And the large
majority of them are not using Apple software, either.
I've got nothing against Apple, other than their prices, which are
demand-driven and not as a result of better machinery inside. I would
definitely buy an iMac if they were comparable in cost, just for the
hell of it.
DGDevin
"Brian Running" wrote in message
news:a833f4d2-2b08-4f4e...@r1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> That's cool, the PC has always been cheaper due to it being an open
>> design.
>> But some consumers have a different set of needs, and some are very
>> demanding professional users too. Different strokes and all that.
> Well, maybe it's different where you are - I bet not - but the
> passionate, feverish, quasi-religious devotion of Mac fans to Macs is
> not based on rational needs.
The same could be said of people who own more than two bass guitars.
> Those people are not objective in their
> arguments in favor of the Mac, and their needs are not, either. Look
> at what actual professionals are using, the ones that really do make
> rational, objective choices, and the large majority of them are using
> PCs. Even in the music and graphic arts fields. And the large
> majority of them are not using Apple software, either.
As I said elsewhere, the PC world eventually caught up with the Mac in the
ability to offer top-notch audio and graphics applications. But there are
other factors, including Apple's considerably superior customer service--I'd
sure rather call Apple support for one of their products than call most of
the companies that made the various parts of my PC. Microsoft won't even
answer my software questions because my Win 7 installation came with the
computer, I have to talk to the shop that built it. And when I compare the
experience of setting up an Apple Airport Extreme router recently with what
we had to do with previous products from Linksys and D-Link--not even close,
the Apple product was up and running so fast I couldn't believe it. Yup, we
paid more, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so again, the damn thing works like
a charm. I've traditionally made fun of Mac users and the prices they pay,
but lately I have to admit that sometimes they really are getting more for
what they pay.