Re: Google Offers to Help Apple Implement RCS Messaging on iOS - What is RCS

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
> In California, "Shake Alert" for earthquakes is now available for both
> iOS and Android, but Google is going further with a worldwide rollout of
> earthquake detection using Android devices
> <https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21362370/android-earthquake-detection-seismometer-epicenter-shakealert-google>.
> Hopefully Apple will follow, and this is something that Google would
> also probably be willing to help Apple with.

While your point was that Apple is not an innovator, but a well-funded
well-marketed "fast follower", there are some (really crappy) things that
the brilliant Apple _did_ innovate where Google was the fast follower.

Apple pioneered, for example, the "Fuck you customer - it's good for you."

For example, take the loss of functionality so that the user is forced to
buy it back. Apple is the pioneer in doing that (e.g., loss of chargers).

Apple pioneered the "fuck you" to the customer "and then tell them it's good
for them"), as in "I took away the charger for the environment."

Apple made it _easy_ for Samsung to follow, although (thank god) almost all
Android phones still have the basic amenities Apple one by one took from
their customers by way of "fuck you - it's good for you."

Offhand... in no particular order...
Never including SD cards
Not enabling FM radios
Removing aux jacks
Removing chargers
Disallowing sideloading
etc.

Apple pioneered the "fuck you - it's good for you", which Google and Samsung
are only happy to follow (if it works with the Android customers, which,
most of the time, it doesn't).
--
Note that I'm not talking onesies here but huge numbers of phones, where I
know that nospam will claim Android made Apple do all these fuck you's.

[sms]

On 10/14/2021 8:02 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> In California, "Shake Alert" for earthquakes is now available for both
>> iOS and Android, but Google is going further with a worldwide rollout of
>> earthquake detection using Android devices
>> <https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21362370/android-earthquake-detection-seismometer-epicenter-shakealert-google>.
>> Hopefully Apple will follow, and this is something that Google would
>> also probably be willing to help Apple with.
>
> While your point was that Apple is not an innovator, but a well-funded
> well-marketed "fast follower",

Being a "fast follower" is often more profitable than being an innovator.

With Android, no manufacturer wants to fall behind a competitor so they
sometimes introduce features before they are ready for prime time. Apple
knows that iPhone users are not going to run out and buy an Android
device just because the iPhone is a year or two late with some cool new
feature, and Apple can let the technology mature and improve until they
add the feature.

The iPhone was late with 3G, 4G, 5G, NFC, IP68, OLED screens, multi-lens
cameras, phablets, wireless charging, 120Hz displays, reverse wireless
charging (except for the MagSafe battery pack), and still lacks hole
punch cameras, USB-C, folding displays, active styluses, and
under-screen fingerprint readers (these are all likely coming on future
iPhones)

[nospam]

In article <skb2j1$fri$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The iPhone was late with 3G,

nope. the iphone had 3g before the first android phone was released.

> 4G, 5G,

the first versions ran hot and drained the battery within an hour or
two, making those nothing more than a useless checklist item to be
'first'.

rest of your list snipped.

as usual, you ignore the numerous things where apple was first,
including the iphone itself, retina displays, wide gamut displays, xdr
displays, variable refresh rate, 64 bit processors, uwb, bluetooth le,
face id, continuity & handoff, lidar, airdrop, heif/hevc, 3d touch,
universal control, pro res video, cinematic mode, private relay,
sign-in, object capture, apple silicon, 5nm process and much more.

android still lacks most of those and took a while for the few they do
have.

[Alan]

Those are all CHOICES, and you've already demonstrated that you're lying
by the use of the term "took away".

You cannot take away that which you never once provided.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-15 04:24, nospam wrote:

> as usual, you ignore the numerous things where apple was first,
> including the iphone itself

Nokia 9000 in late 1990s, first smartphone. Not known in USA because of
lack of GSM (but was available on Omnipoimt/Voicestream and Fido in
Canada). This was a PSION Series 3a under the hood with a Nokia phone
packaged into a clamshell phone. Data at the time was circuit switched
since GPRS didn't exist yet. (GSM offered circuit switched data from
very early on - the GSM network acted as a glorified RS232 cable that
let the mobile device connect to a modem at the mobile carrier premises
which then dialed into the telephone nerwork to connect).

Compaq iPaq evolved into the 6300 in June 2004 (by then under HP) with
cellular capability, touch screen etc.

The expected tidal wave from Microsoft CE (which morphed into different
names) was so great that PSION, the first to do PDAs to just throw in
the towel and donate its new operating system to a consortium headed by
Nokia ( OS got renamed to Symbian).

Windows CE never took over as expected, and it was instead IOS and Android.

Apple wasn't first smartphone. But it did a much better job than prevous
smartphones.


> retina displays,

Not an Apple product. That is a LCD manufacturer product. Where Apple
has been good is securing supply first for new tech.

> 64 bit processors

Digital was first with the Alpha in 1992. Apple was first to
commercialise a 64 bit ARM processor in the 2010s. Heck, even the 8086
went 64 bits before ARM.

> face id,

Plenty of facial recognotion before. iPhone. In fact, even the Compaq
Ipaq had fingerprint recog on some models. Apple may have done much
better job of implementing both fingerprint and facial recog, but it
wasn't first.

[sms]

On 10/15/2021 10:29 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-15 04:24, nospam wrote:
>
>> as usual, you ignore the numerous things where apple was first,
>> including the iphone itself
>
> Nokia 9000 in late 1990s, first smartphone.

The IBM Simon, distributed by BellSouth Cellular Corporation beginning
in 1994, predated the Nokia 9000 as the first smart phone, see
<https://history-computer.com/products/simon-personal-communicator-complete-history-of-the-computer-by-ibs/>.

Steve Jobs' genius was the ability to look at product categories that
failed and then creating compelling products that addressed the flaws of
the failed products. The Xerox Star begat the Mac. The MPMan
F10/EigerMan F10 & F20 begat the iPod. The IBM Simon and Nokia 9000
begat the iPhone. Windows XP Tablet Edition tablets begat the iPad.

[nospam]

In article <ITiaJ.210966$Kv2....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Apple wasn't first smartphone. But it did a much better job than prevous
> smartphones.

i didn't say they made the first smartphone.

what i said was that the iphone was first, which android and windows
phone copied.

> > retina displays,
>
> Not an Apple product.

yes it was in an apple product, first in the iphone 4, then later
released in macbooks and the imac.

the latest ipad pro has a mini-led xdr display that is without
question, the best display on any mobile device.

> > 64 bit processors
>
> Digital was first with the Alpha in 1992.

digital didn't make phones and their computers weren't that good either.

the first smartphone to have a 64 bit processor was the iphone 5s,
using apple's own design, the a7.

android device makers and qualcomm tried to claim 64 bit wasn't needed
while they scrambled to catch up.

> Apple was first to
> commercialise a 64 bit ARM processor in the 2010s.

specifically, 2013.

> Heck, even the 8086
> went 64 bits before ARM.

8086 was never used in a phone, nor has it been used since the 1980s.

> > face id,
>
> Plenty of facial recognotion before.

ones which were trivially spoofed with a photo.

one of them (i think samsung) was spoofed *at* the product introduction
in the demo room, moments after it was announced, by using a selfie on
another phone.

face id is the first facial recognition system that is actually secure
and incredibly difficult to spoof (nothing is 100%).

it took google a couple of years to copy face id for the pixel 4, which
they subsequently discontinued in the pixel 5, leaving not a single
android device with anything equivalent.

[nospam]

In article <skceks$nb6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The Xerox Star begat the Mac.

not really. both had a graphical display with icons, but the similarity
mostly ends there. the user interface differences are dramatic, all of
which was apple's own efforts.

what's also amusing is that in 1984, a $2500 128k mac running from a
floppy drive was faster than a $15,000 xerox star, with a shitload more
apps too. i used both.

> The IBM Simon and Nokia 9000
> begat the iPhone.

other than both being phones, no.

> Windows XP Tablet Edition tablets begat the iPad.

also wrong. there is nothing in common between windows xp tablets and
the ipad beyond the shape.

apple designed a touch-centric operating system explicitly for tablets
and phones.

microsoft chose not to do that, and why the old windows tablets were a
horrible failure.

[News]

HP Jornada and iPaq...

[Carlos E.R.]

:-D

<https://www.applesfera.com/curiosidades/tipo-ha-conseguido-poner-usb-c-funcional-iphone-13-no-quien-crees-que>

*One guy has managed to put a working USB-C in an iPhone X (and it's not
who you think it is). *

Someone has managed to put a USB-C on an iPhone X. And he's done it with
a port that is functional, both in charging and data transfer. The
project demonstrates that it is possible to create an iPhone with USB-C
and shows us what it would be like to have it on a terminal of these
characteristics.


The unseen: an iPhone X with USB-C port

An iPhone X with USB-C is not something that will go unnoticed. Although
Apple probably has several iPhone models in operation with this
connector in its laboratories, the truth is that it is most striking.
And the man responsible is Ken Pillonel, a technician who studied
electronics and holds a master's degree in robotics from the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology.

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAekbJf4Gsw&t=39s

World's First USB-C iPhone #shorts


https://kenp.io/iphone_usbc_mod_part_1/

The USB-C iPhone Mod - Part 1


<https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/11/iphone-gets-usb-c-thanks-to-creative-robotics-engineer>

iPhone gets USB-C thanks to creative robotics engineer


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan]

Again: the Xerox Star did NOT beget the Mac.

Apple was working on GUI concepts before anyone had seen it.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-15 14:07, nospam wrote:
>
> what's also amusing is that in 1984, a $2500 128k mac running from a
> floppy drive was faster than a $15,000 xerox star, with a shitload more
> apps too. i used both.

Apple's first GUI was the Lisa a few years before the first Mac. The
LISA was much closer to the Xerox computer. And not fair to compare a
1984 Mac with a 181 or 1982 Xerox product since chips back then saw
performance double every year.

> apple designed a touch-centric operating system explicitly for tablets
> and phones.

Windows CE and PSION's EPOC 32 both were touch screen centric and in
late 1990s, much before Apple got into that generation. The Newton
predated both, but never evolved into a phone. Windows CE (under
various names() did support phones before Apple did. (HP iPaq 1600)

There was also tha Palm Pilot which became popular in USA and did
eventually morph into a phone but after HP bought it, just perished as
do must of what HP acquires.

[Rod Speed]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> as usual, you ignore the numerous things where
>> apple was first, including the iphone itself

> Nokia 9000 in late 1990s, first smartphone.

Not true and the first iphone was radically different anyway.

> Apple wasn't first smartphone.

He didn’t say it was.

> But it did a much better job than prevous smartphones.

>> retina displays,

> Not an Apple product. That is a LCD manufacturer product.

Mindless hair splitting.

> Where Apple has been good is securing supply first for new tech.

>> 64 bit processors

> Digital was first with the Alpha in 1992.

But not used in a phone, stupid.

[nospam]

In article <65naJ.92464$ol1....@fx42.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >
> > what's also amusing is that in 1984, a $2500 128k mac running from a
> > floppy drive was faster than a $15,000 xerox star, with a shitload more
> > apps too. i used both.
>
> Apple's first GUI was the Lisa a few years before the first Mac. The
> LISA was much closer to the Xerox computer.

no it very definitely wasn't.

> And not fair to compare a
> 1984 Mac with a 181 or 1982 Xerox product since chips back then saw
> performance double every year.

no they didn't.

the point is that a small desktop computer could outperform something
six times its price.

> > apple designed a touch-centric operating system explicitly for tablets
> > and phones.
>
> Windows CE and PSION's EPOC 32 both were touch screen centric and in
> late 1990s, much before Apple got into that generation.

wince was basically windows with a proxy for a mouse. it was not
touch-centric and the 'touch' was resistive with a stylus.

that's very, very different than the iphone.

> The Newton
> predated both, but never evolved into a phone. Windows CE (under
> various names() did support phones before Apple did. (HP iPaq 1600)

newton was another apple first and a bit ahead of its time.

> There was also tha Palm Pilot which became popular in USA

only because it was less expensive than a newton and small enough to
fit in a pocket. otherwise, it was nothing special.

> and did
> eventually morph into a phone but after HP bought it, just perished as
> do must of what HP acquires.

that part is true.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-15 3:16 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-15 14:07, nospam wrote:
>>
>> what's also amusing is that in 1984, a $2500 128k mac running from a
>> floppy drive was faster than a $15,000 xerox star, with a shitload more
>> apps too. i used both.
>
> Apple's first GUI was the Lisa a few years before the first Mac. The
> LISA was much closer to the Xerox computer. And not fair to compare a
> 1984 Mac with a 181 or 1982 Xerox product since chips back then saw
> performance double every year.

1. The Lisa got its GUI from the work they were doing on the Mac, not
the other way around.

2. It still wasn't anything like the Xerox GUI other than that there
were certain basic concepts in common (windows, a pointer, icons, etc.).
How you worked with those elements in each was very different (look up:
direct manipulation).

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-15 18:31, Alan wrote:

> 1. The Lisa got its GUI from the work they were doing on the Mac, not
> the other way around

Suggest you read real history books. Even the Isaccson biography of
Steve Jobs speaks of the Xerox-> Lisa -> Mac. Just because muych was
added/changed since Xerox does not negate that the roots of the GUI came
from Xerox Parc work.

[nospam]

In article <gunaJ.239146$T_8....@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > 1. The Lisa got its GUI from the work they were doing on the Mac, not
> > the other way around
>
>
> Suggest you read real history books.

suggest you listen to people who were there.

> Even the Isaccson biography of
> Steve Jobs speaks of the Xerox-> Lisa -> Mac.

what specifically does it say?

lisa did ship before mac, but that's about it. internally, they were
separate concurrent projects.

> Just because muych was
> added/changed since Xerox does not negate that the roots of the GUI came
> from Xerox Parc work.

very little did. they were only casually similar.

[Alan]

Quote it.

And if he says that... ...he's just got it wrong.

[Rob]

He probably meant to say the Xerox Alto.
The Alto was running a GUI before Apple even existed...

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-15 18:59, nospam wrote:

>> Even the Isaccson biography of
>> Steve Jobs speaks of the Xerox-> Lisa -> Mac.
>
> what specifically does it say?

It explains the process by which Jobs saw the work at Xerox Parc and got
the moral equivalent of a licenmce to use the work. it was not stolen,
it was used with Xerox,s official blessing).

Lisa was already being developped, and they integrated the GUI design
from Parc into the Lisa.

The Macintosh started after that, And since Steve Job moved from the
Lisa to Macintosh he brought the Xerox concepts to thye Mac group as well.

[Alan]

And that still doesn't mean Apple was copying it.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-16 1:24 a.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-15 18:59, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Even the Isaccson biography of
>>> Steve Jobs speaks of the Xerox-> Lisa -> Mac.
>>
>> what specifically does it say?
>
> It explains the process by which Jobs saw the work at Xerox Parc and got
> the moral equivalent of a licenmce to use the work. it was not stolen,
> it was used with Xerox,s official blessing).

Except the GUI was already in development BEFORE that visit.

>
> Lisa was already being developped, and they integrated the GUI design
> from Parc into the Lisa.

No. They didn't.

>
> The Macintosh started after that,

Nope. That's wrong.

> And since Steve Job moved from the
> Lisa to Macintosh he brought the Xerox concepts to thye Mac group as well.

Also wrong.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-16 10:58, no...@nope.com

>> And since Steve Job moved from the
>> Lisa to Macintosh he brought the Xerox concepts to thye Mac group as well.
>
> Also wrong.

dear nameless person without anu credentials, suggest you at least look
up the entry for Lisa in Wikipedia and read that history, if you're
unwilling to read the Steve Jobs biography by Isaacson.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-16 2:07 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:

I suggest you remember all the posts I made on this very subject,
including quotes from Jef Raskin...

...or don't you even know who that is?

[Alan]

On 2021-10-16 2:07 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:

I'll take pity on you and your ignorance.

This is Jef Raskin:

'CHRONOLOGY

The fact was that the Macintosh project was officially started-- it had
really been started in 1978-- it was approved and was a going project
before that visit took place. So it's chronologically not possible for
that visit to have sparked the Macintosh. I have read over and over that
that visit is what started the Macintosh project, that Jobs saw it and
said, "There shall be Macintosh." But no, the Macintosh project was
already in existence. Actually, I had worked with Bill Atkinson and some
other people because I was on the outs with Jobs by then, and Bill
Atkinson was on his wonderful list; so I had finagled things to get Jobs
to PARC so he could begin to understand what I was trying to do.

Most people don't know also that the Lisa machine in those early days--
this was 1979-- was a character-generator, green-screen machine; it
didn't have a bitmapped screen, it was not Macintosh-like. That all came
from the Macintosh project to the Lisa. I went over then to Ken
Rothmuller, and I was telling him why this was a dumb thing you're
doing, that the future is in bit-mapped screens, and take a look at what
we're doing on the Macintosh project. But it was Lisa that got all the
funding, and Jobs behind it, and two hundred engineers, and cost
$15,000, and my little project with just a handful of people was doing
the right thing.

But the basic idea of a graphics-based, user interface-oriented machine
for Lisa came from the Macintosh project. The only book I've ever seen
that mentions that is Owen Linzmeyer's Apple Confidential. Everyone else
has gotten it wrong: they say that the Macintosh was a downsized Lisa,
when really the Lisa was an upsized Macintosh. Exactly backwards.'

<https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/primary/interviews/raskin/parc.html>

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-16 17:22, nope wrote:

> Most people don't know also that the Lisa machine in those early days--
> this was 1979-- was a character-generator, green-screen machine; it
> didn't have a bitmapped screen,

Until visit to Xerox Parc by Steve Jobs. Tye Lisa was already started,
and as you state started off as character cell and then changed to GUI.


To quote the very link you posted:
##
Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right
and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names,
exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly
the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software
came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And
there was cross-pollination, which was fine
##


Since the Lisa started as character cell and changed to incorportare GUI
later, Have it ever occured to you that the same could have happened to
the Mac? (especially if Streve Jobs is the one who change the course on
the Lisa to make it go GUI and when Jobs moved to Macintosh team did the
same?

Also, your guy uses the "stole" term. Steve Jobs debunked this because
Apple got official rights to use the Xerox Parc designs. (Xerox saw no
strategic future of that tech for itself so had no problems with Apple
using it).

The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first product out
with GUI. Are you denyting that the Lisa was first to market before the
Mac?

Since Isaacson interviewed Steve Jobs extensively and Jobs approved his
biography, what you are saying is that Steve Jobs is the one who got it
wrong isntead of Raskin's interpretation.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-16 2:46 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-16 17:22, nope wrote:
>
>> Most people don't know also that the Lisa machine in those early days--
>> this was 1979-- was a character-generator, green-screen machine; it
>> didn't have a bitmapped screen,
>
> Until visit to Xerox Parc by Steve Jobs. Tye Lisa was already started,
> and as you state started off as character cell and then changed to GUI.
>
>
> To quote the very link you posted:
> ##
> Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right
> and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names,
> exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly
> the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software
> came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And
> there was cross-pollination, which was fine
> ##
>
>
> Since the Lisa started as character cell and changed to incorportare GUI
> later, Have it ever occured to you that the same could have happened to
> the Mac? (especially if Streve Jobs is the one who change the course on
> the Lisa to make it go GUI and when Jobs moved to Macintosh team did the
> same?

You have the order of operations wrong.

The GUI work pre-dates the PARC visit... ...which as only to sell Jobs
on the value of what they were ALREADY doing.

>
> Also, your guy uses the "stole" term. Steve Jobs debunked this because
> Apple got official rights to use the Xerox Parc designs. (Xerox saw no
> strategic future of that tech for itself so had no problems with Apple
> using it).
>
> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first product out
> with GUI. Are you denyting that the Lisa was first to market before the
> Mac?

No one stated that the Mac was the first product out with a GUI.

>
> Since Isaacson interviewed Steve Jobs extensively and Jobs approved his
> biography, what you are saying is that Steve Jobs is the one who got it
> wrong isntead of Raskin's interpretation.

I'm saying that Jobs lied when it suited him.

>
>

[Rod Speed]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote

> nope wrote

>> Most people don't know also that the Lisa machine in those
>> early days-- this was 1979-- was a character-generator,
>> green-screen machine; it didn't have a bitmapped screen,

> Until visit to Xerox Parc by Steve Jobs.

Wrong, as Raskin spells out. Isaacson got it wrong.

> Tye Lisa was already started, and as you state started
> off as character cell and then changed to GUI.

Because Raskin rubbed their nose in what the Mac was doing.

Nothing to do with Parc.

>
> To quote the very link you posted:
> ##
> Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right
> and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names,
> exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly
> the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software
> came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And
> there was cross-pollination, which was fine
> ##

Says nothing useful about why the Lisa went from character to bit mapped.

> Since the Lisa started as character cell and changed to incorportare GUI
> later, Have it ever occured to you that the same could have happened to
> the Mac?

Raskin who was involved with the Mac says that it didn’t happen that way.

> (especially if Streve Jobs is the one who change
> the course on the Lisa to make it go GUI

He didn’t, as Raskin points out.

> and when Jobs moved to Macintosh team did the same?

You have that backwards, as always.

> Since Isaacson interviewed Steve Jobs extensively and Jobs approved his
> biography, what you are saying is that Steve Jobs is the one who got it
> wrong isntead of Raskin's interpretation.

You don’t know what Jobs told Isaacson. Raskin does know how the Lisa went
bit mapped and GUI.

[nospam]

In article <3LHaJ.194817$o45.1...@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first product out
> with GUI.

nobody said that

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-16 18:25, nospam wrote:

>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first product out
>> with GUI.
>
> nobody said that

Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple, and
mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my response that
Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.

[nospam]

In article <iH1bJ.72695$md6....@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei

nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple did
which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.

in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.

the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly because it
was very slow and very expensive.

the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.

In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an influence
than the IBM AT was, IMHO.

The iPod was pretty damn good though (I still have half a dozen but stopped
buying them when they stopped working with SharePod freeware instead of the
iTunes abomination).

Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
much more than the blackberry did before it (and certainly Google took only
a few years to overcome the iPhone in every way possible).

I had them all - (I still have those big black rectangular cases - don't
believe me - ask for a photo) - and still have a few iPods and somewhere is
the AT&T iPhone I had to jailbreak to work on T-Mobile (and of course, I
have iPads & I just recently bought a 128GB iPhone 12 mini for half price).

Back to the fundamental statement above - which do you feel revolutionalized
the PC industry more than the other (if by a lot)... the Mac or the IBM AT?

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:

> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.

Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.

Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
(clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
in file selection menu.

You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-17 19:19, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an influence
> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.

The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC. IBM PC took
over because IBM was the dominant computer company and DIgital (the then
#2) chose not to follow into that market. IBM got PCs into companies
because it was already into every company via its mainframe business,
and that took the wind out of the Apple II (which had made inroads even
into banks prior to IBM PC). The IBM PC was a business success, not a
technological one. It had far inferior 8086 chip than Apple's 68k
selection. 640k with segment register nightmare.


The LIsa and Mac had mouse driver and window server integrated into the
operating system whereas the IBM PC, it was all layered as an
application caled "Windows" (no mouse when in DOS mode). And all that
came much later than the Mac.

> Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
> much more than the blackberry did before it

Many phones had email clients and WAP browsers before Blackberry.
Blackberry had a keyboard instead of just the numeric keypad. And it had
different business model where all data flowed through Blackberry/RIM
servers before going to the Internet (since RIM handled encryption).
But my old Siemens or Ericsson 790 had same apps/functions as a
Blackberry, just more ackward to use because smaller.

[nospam]

In article <uB2bJ.110487$Dr.1...@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> Read about X-Windows.

i used x-windows. it was very poorly designed and did absolutely
nothing to the industry.

> And there wwere many graphical systems attached
> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.

spacewar, which ran on a pdp-1, doesn't count.

> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
> in file selection menu.

apple did much, much more than that

> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.

apple makes personal computers and therefore those other companies are
not relevant.

[nospam]

In article <BK2bJ.193226$rl3.1...@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.

so you finally admit apple was first and others copied what they did.

[JF Mezei]

BTW, just as you think Apple was alone with windowing software:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#Graphical_user_interfaces

The original graphical user interface for VMS was a proprietary
windowing system known as the VMS Workstation Software (VWS), which was
first released for the VAXstation I in 1984.[114] It exposed an API
called the User Interface Services (UIS).[115] It ran on a limited
selection of VAX hardware.[116]

VWS was replaced with X-Windows on VMS since X-WIndows provided industry
standard API which made it easier for software to run on VMS and Unix.



VWS came with a wicked simulator to land a LEM on the moon. When VMS
moved to X-Windows, the moon lander simulator was replaced with a
"physics realistic" flight simulator with pieces of software donated by
CAE that used VMS to power the real flight simulators back then. (but
the graphcs were wire-frame)

[JF Mezei]

I never argued that Microsoft Windows was before Mac.

Your ilk argued that the Mac was first with graphical user interface. It
was not. There were others oustide of Mac/PC arena. And ther was the
Lisa before the Mac, so even inside of Apple, the Mac was not first.

[nospam]

In article <xl3bJ.193227$rl3....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#Graphical_user_interfaces
>
> The original graphical user interface for VMS was a proprietary
> windowing system known as the VMS Workstation Software (VWS), which was
> first released for the VAXstation I in 1984.

from the citation,
The first release of the V station I was available in late 1984.

that was *after* the mac and certainly well after the lisa

unlike what apple did, it had zero influence on the industry.

[nospam]

In article <lo3bJ.193228$rl3....@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >
> >> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
> >> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
> >> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.
> >
> > so you finally admit apple was first and others copied what they did.
>
> I never argued that Microsoft Windows was before Mac.

nobody said you did.

> Your ilk argued that the Mac was first with graphical user interface. It
> was not.

nobody said that either.

> There were others oustide of Mac/PC arena. And ther was the
> Lisa before the Mac, so even inside of Apple, the Mac was not first.

mac & lisa were *separate* projects.

the mac project began before lisa, however, lisa was released before
mac. that's what happens when two projects are on separate tracks.

[sms]

And shortly after Lisa, and long before Windows, there was Digital
Research GEM.

But it's certainly accurate that Apple popularized the GUI, as well as
digital music players, smart phones, and tablets, even if they were not
the first company to come out with thee products.

[Alan]

Quote it.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-17 4:19 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>
> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an influence
> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.

The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II

>
> The iPod was pretty damn good though (I still have half a dozen but stopped
> buying them when they stopped working with SharePod freeware instead of the
> iTunes abomination).

The iPod revolutionized MP3 players.

>
> Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
> much more than the blackberry did before it (and certainly Google took only
> a few years to overcome the iPhone in every way possible).

Much more than the Blackberry did.

>
> I had them all - (I still have those big black rectangular cases - don't
> believe me - ask for a photo) - and still have a few iPods and somewhere is
> the AT&T iPhone I had to jailbreak to work on T-Mobile (and of course, I
> have iPads & I just recently bought a 128GB iPhone 12 mini for half price).
>
> Back to the fundamental statement above - which do you feel revolutionalized
> the PC industry more than the other (if by a lot)... the Mac or the IBM AT?

All personal computers today follow the model that the Mac started.

All smartphones today follow the model that the iPhone started.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-17 4:46 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>
>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.

Initial release...

...AFTER the Mac.

>
> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
> clicked document).

No, actually. Many of the things we take for granted was "obvious"
didn't exist in the Xerox WIMP OSes.

[Alan]

And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...

[Lewis]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS#Graphical_user_interfaces

Well, that didn't take you long.

--
Because you can't cotton to evil. No Sir. You have to smack evil on
the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad
evil. Bad BAD evil"'

[Rod Speed]

Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote

Nope, lots of the detail is very different.

[Alan]

I'm sorry, but there was a time when you could actually read the source
code and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names
as the same functions in Mac OS.

[Rod Speed]

Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple, and
>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my response
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>
>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple did
>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly because it
>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>
>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>
>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.

> I'm sorry,

Obvious lie.

> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code

Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.

> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names as the
> same functions in Mac OS.

Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.

Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.

It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.

[Alan]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/10/2021 04.27, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 4:19 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>> influence
>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>
> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II

No success at all. Nobody used it here. Everybody was waiting for the
PC, and when it appeared, it was an explosion.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan]

You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?

[Rod Speed]

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
when the detail of the GUI is so different.

And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.

[Alan]

Wow.

Wota stunning example of you not understanding the history.

Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way involved?

[Rod Speed]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
> Alan wrote
>> Robin Goodfellow wrote
>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>>> influence
>>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>>
>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
>
> No success at all. Nobody used it here.

That’s bullshit and your dinosaur of a country is irrelevant anyway.

> Everybody was waiting for the PC,

They had no idea it was coming so couldn’t have waited for it.

> and when it appeared, it was an explosion.

That happened everywhere, essentially because it meant that
the PC wasn’t just something from a previously unknown
garage operation which may or may not work out to be viable.


What are you personally going to do now that prostitution
is going to be stamped out in your country ?

Guess you can just go across the border when you need to.

[Robin Goodfellow]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> asked

> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.

Since you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation, with nuance, is
possible with you, where I'll incorporate what you claim with what I
remember below.

For _me_, the Apple PC (I don't remember which one it was I was using at a
school environment) was just a toy for making graphics in the early days
(when most computer printers were dot matrix and yet the Apple PCs had a
laser printer - which was horribly slow - but the printout was very nice).

For _me_, the "personal computer" didn't take off until the IBM AT days, and
even then, I remember we had to separately install Windows 2.1 (or something
like that) and then Windows 3.x (as I recall anyway), which just wasn't
worth the hassle.

It was only until a true Windows came out that the IBM PC, for me, killed
the Apple PC (although my first PC came without a hard drive so I had to
spend something like $400 to buy a 10MB HDD (as I recall anyway).

For me, the true Windows PC left the Apple PCs in the dust, and there was
only one chance for the Apple PC to catch up which was when I was using the
predecessor of PowerPoint on it in a commercial environment but at some
point the Windows PowerPoint took over, and then at some other point
Microsoft Office (which was the mainstay of my tool suite) ran miserably
slowly on the Apple PCs (this was in the days where I was also connecting
Apple, Windows, and SunOS machines using CAP, CIFs, and Samba, and where I
was sadly introduced to the infamous resource & data forks on Apple PCs).

It was greatly to my delight that this commercial environment of
professional Windows PCs were vastly quicker than anything Apple offered at
the time with respect to Microsoft Windows (later on, they caught up - but
it was too late by then - they missed the boat).

It was the same with Solaris, when Linux kicked their ass and left Sun in
the dust, never to return.

In summary, you may be correct that Windows _copied_ the Apple GUI (which
Apple copied also but others covered that already), but my recollection is
that the IBM PC killed the Apple PC once Microsoft Office took hold in the
commercial environment (PowerPoint, Excel, and Word mostly).

Of course, the opposite likely happened in the graphics arena.

> The LIsa and Mac had mouse driver and window server integrated into the
> operating system whereas the IBM PC, it was all layered as an
> application caled "Windows" (no mouse when in DOS mode). And all that
> came much later than the Mac.

While I agree the driver situation was miserable on the early Microsoft
operating systems, today it's pretty decent (except perhaps for printers,
where even Linux beats out Microsoft in terms of supporting legacy
printers).

Nowadays, the drivers aren't a problem on _any_ personal computer, are they?

>> Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
>> much more than the blackberry did before it
>
> Many phones had email clients and WAP browsers before Blackberry.

I had a kyocera which was my first 'smart' phone. It stunk. But it had a
stylus (as I recall). It was the reason I left Verizon as Verizon upped my
two year contract (the company was paying for everything in those days) when
mine broke and it had to be replaced on the insurance plan which the company
was paying for. I didn't like that so I moved to AT&T instead when that
renewed Verizon two year contract ran out. Like the Apple PC, I never looked
back. You miss the boat with most consumers who found something better.

> Blackberry had a keyboard instead of just the numeric keypad. And it had
> different business model where all data flowed through Blackberry/RIM
> servers before going to the Internet (since RIM handled encryption).
> But my old Siemens or Ericsson 790 had same apps/functions as a
> Blackberry, just more ackward to use because smaller.

The company paid for our Blackberrys which I had after the Kyocera, which I
had on AT&T (see above why I left Verizon for AT&T). Eventually I retired
and kept my blackberry on AT&T until the clit broke and AT&T insisted on
forcing me to pay for data even as AT&T would put a data block on the line
so that I wouldn't be charged for data.

I considered AT&T's position ridiculous, and even googled for how to change
the IMEI as in those days, a "smartphone" was on a small list of specific
phones, but eventually I just dropped AT&T for T-Mobile who didn't care that
I didn't want data (in those early days, data cost a lot more than just
voice).

Again, I dropped AT&T the instant the contract ran out and never looked
back, much as I did with the iPods when Sharepod ceased to work.

Sharepod was great because it TAUGHT me what Apple's marketing strategy was.

Notice this in Sharepod of those days (which I still have and still use!).
a. It was free
b. It did EXACTLY what you wanted it to to
c. Which was it had an Excel-like GUI that populated your iPod

You could populate any iPod with anything you wanted to (mostly MP3s).
Yes. Any iPod. Any file.
Anything you wanted to do.
Just like God intended your own devices to be able to do.

No crappy Apple bullshit rules about what you could or couldn't do.
No crappy complex Apple iTunes bullshit interface that didn't do what you
wanted it to do (and which tended to deleted EVERYTHING on the iPod if you
weren't super careful because of its idiotic "library" definition rules).
No crappy Apple bullshit with installing quicktime and other bullshit
unnecessary bloatware (that I'm sure the apologists just loved to install).

That iTunes was an utter abomination of restrictions.
You had _more functionality_ without iTunes on Windows than with iTunes.
The _only_ thing you needed iTunes for was the initial initialization of the
iPod (and even that "could" be done with other tools - but that wasn't worth
the effort).

So what you'd do was buy the iPod at Costco (it may have still been "Price
Club" at that time). Then install the iTunes abomination on Windows.
Initialize the iPod. Then spend more time removing all the freaking shitware
that Apple installed with iTunes (bonjour, quicktime, and other crap).

Then copy the SharePod executable onto the iPod and that's it.
You could now do what you wanted with that iPod.

a. You could plug it into ANY Windows computer on the planet.
b. As long as iTunes was NOT on that Windows PC, you were fine.
c. You could do EXACTLY what you'd want to do
Which is copy any song you want to/from that iPod & Windows.
You could rename the tags as you saw fit in SharePod but it was easier to
use an MP3 batch tagger for that (given you'd have ten thousand songs
amassed by that time on your various computers, iPods, and hard drives).

Anyway, the smartphone killed the iPod but what killed the iPod for me was
the instant I bought an iPod (the bigger one, as I recall) from Costco that
wouldn't run Sharepod anymore (due to the operating system on it).

I returned that iPod in a flash to Costco and that was, as with all the
rest, the last time I bought an Apple iPod.

Meanwhile, the smart phone killed all my Garmin streetpilot & nuvi's! :)

But notice a key point which is I learned that the free tools worked far
better at being easy to use, installing no bloatware whatsoever (Sharepod
didn't TOUCH the PC!), and not being artificially restricted by Apple.

I got a very good lesson in the prison garden for sure with those iPods.
(cue nospam's childish remarks about pirating putting people in prison
when the fact is NOBODY has ever been convicted who fought the charges in
torrenting any movie in the entire history of the United States on this.)
--
In the beginning, without data, I used the offline nav apps, but nowadays
with unlimited free 5G data on T-mobile, there's no need for offline save
for in emergencies (so the skills learned are still worthwhile).

[Alan]

On 2021-10-18 12:39 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> asked
>> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
>> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
>> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.
>
> Since you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation, with nuance, is
> possible with you, where I'll incorporate what you claim with what I
> remember below.
>
> For _me_, the Apple PC (I don't remember which one it was I was using at a
> school environment) was just a toy for making graphics in the early days
> (when most computer printers were dot matrix and yet the Apple PCs had a
> laser printer - which was horribly slow - but the printout was very nice).

So a Mac

>
> For _me_, the "personal computer" didn't take off until the IBM AT days, and
> even then, I remember we had to separately install Windows 2.1 (or something
> like that) and then Windows 3.x (as I recall anyway), which just wasn't
> worth the hassle.

The IBM PC was rushed into existence because of the Apple II

>
> It was only until a true Windows came out that the IBM PC, for me, killed
> the Apple PC (although my first PC came without a hard drive so I had to
> spend something like $400 to buy a 10MB HDD (as I recall anyway).
>
> For me, the true Windows PC left the Apple PCs in the dust, and there was
> only one chance for the Apple PC to catch up which was when I was using the
> predecessor of PowerPoint on it in a commercial environment but at some
> point the Windows PowerPoint took over, and then at some other point
> Microsoft Office (which was the mainstay of my tool suite) ran miserably
> slowly on the Apple PCs (this was in the days where I was also connecting
> Apple, Windows, and SunOS machines using CAP, CIFs, and Samba, and where I
> was sadly introduced to the infamous resource & data forks on Apple PCs).

Yes: that was when Microsoft's development efforts for the Mac were
TERRIBLE.

>
> It was greatly to my delight that this commercial environment of
> professional Windows PCs were vastly quicker than anything Apple offered at
> the time with respect to Microsoft Windows (later on, they caught up - but
> it was too late by then - they missed the boat).
>
> It was the same with Solaris, when Linux kicked their ass and left Sun in
> the dust, never to return.
>
> In summary, you may be correct that Windows _copied_ the Apple GUI (which
> Apple copied also but others covered that already), but my recollection is
> that the IBM PC killed the Apple PC once Microsoft Office took hold in the
> commercial environment (PowerPoint, Excel, and Word mostly).

We can't have "covered" that Apple copied the GUI, because that isn't
what happened.

No... ...it didn't.

>
> Notice this in Sharepod of those days (which I still have and still use!).
> a. It was free
> b. It did EXACTLY what you wanted it to to
> c. Which was it had an Excel-like GUI that populated your iPod

Great. Good for it.

>
> You could populate any iPod with anything you wanted to (mostly MP3s).
> Yes. Any iPod. Any file.
> Anything you wanted to do.
> Just like God intended your own devices to be able to do.

"God"?

>
> No crappy Apple bullshit rules about what you could or couldn't do.

Apple's rules built an ecosystem that lots of people who found computers
far too intimidating could trust.

> No crappy complex Apple iTunes bullshit interface that didn't do what you
> wanted it to do (and which tended to deleted EVERYTHING on the iPod if you
> weren't super careful because of its idiotic "library" definition rules).

No. It never did that.

> No crappy Apple bullshit with installing quicktime and other bullshit
> unnecessary bloatware (that I'm sure the apologists just loved to install).

Which you could delete if you want and which, even today takes up only
(checking) 15.2MB

>
> That iTunes was an utter abomination of restrictions.
> You had _more functionality_ without iTunes on Windows than with iTunes.
> The _only_ thing you needed iTunes for was the initial initialization of the
> iPod (and even that "could" be done with other tools - but that wasn't worth
> the effort).
>
> So what you'd do was buy the iPod at Costco (it may have still been "Price
> Club" at that time). Then install the iTunes abomination on Windows.
> Initialize the iPod. Then spend more time removing all the freaking shitware
> that Apple installed with iTunes (bonjour, quicktime, and other crap).

Bonjour brought zero-conf networking to Windows.

[Frank Slootweg]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>

> > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.

As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
history.

The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
1984.

The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
fscking deal!

> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
>

> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that

> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you

> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
> in file selection menu.
>
> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.

Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
computers'.

That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
'privately owned/used'.

So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.

For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
person at the time.

Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
three decades+!

[Alan]

On 2021-10-18 12:54 p.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> history.
>
> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> 1984.
>
> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> fscking deal!

It seemed to be a big deal to all the people who bought the Mac...

...and didn't buy VWS.

:-)

LOL!

Apple is taking over the world.

[Rod Speed]

We'll see...

> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way involved?

Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple, didn’t steal
it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0

[sms]

Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
different story.

[Alan]

Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.

[nospam]

In article <skkqe3...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> history.

nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
is why they resort to insults.

> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> 1984.

yes, they were, to wildly different market segments, for wildly
different use cases.

comparing the two is bizarre.

the key is that one of them changed the industry and the other did not.

> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> fscking deal!

speaking of rewriting history, macintosh was introduced on jan 24,
1984, and yes, it was a big deal. as noted above, it changed the entire
industry. vax did not.

unlike the vax, mac was *only* a gui. there was no command line, at
all. its entire hardware and software architecture was very different
than anything that preceded it, making it substantially easier to write
apps.

> That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
> 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
> time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
> etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
> 'privately owned/used'.

it's not a bogus argument.

personal computer means not a mini or mainframe, sometimes called a
microcomputer.

a personal computer was also affordable for non-businesses, thus its
name. many people bought them for their own use and/or their kids.

a vax is a minicomputer, not a personal computer. nobody bought a vax
for their kids to do homework, play games or connect to bbses.

using your bogus definition, univac and dec pdp-7 personal computers
because only one person could use it at a time. they even came with a
desk for their single user:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Museum_of_Sci
ence%2C_Boston%2C_MA_-_IMG_3163.JPG/800px-Museum_of_Science%2C_Boston%2C
_MA_-_IMG_3163.JPG>

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Pdp7-oslo-200
5.jpeg/800px-Pdp7-oslo-2005.jpeg>

nobody (other than you) would consider univac, pdp-7 or vax to be
personal computers.

[Rod Speed]

You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.

Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is stolen
wholesale
because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
function.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-18 5:40 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way
>>>> involved?
>>>
>>> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple,
>>> didn’t steal it.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0
>>>
>>
>> Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.
>
> You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.
>
> Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is
> stolen wholesale
> because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
> function.

It's been a very long time, but I read it and it was conclusive.

[Rod Speed]

Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote

You read what ?

Why didn't Apple sue ? Don’t believe it given the detail of the GUI is so
different.

[Alan]

They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.

[nospam]

In article <skl9te$bu0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:

> >
> > Why didn't Apple sue ?  Donšt believe it given the detail of the GUI is

> > so different.
>
> They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.

due to a legal technicality, not the merits.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-18 7:24 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <skl9te$bu0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>

>>> Why didn't Apple sue ?  Don¹t believe it given the detail of the GUI is

>>> so different.
>>
>> They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.
>
> due to a legal technicality, not the merits.
>

And due to Apple's desire to use the lawsuit settlement as leverage.

[Frank Slootweg]

"he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
'Alan'.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <skkqe3...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
> >
> > As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> > history.
>
> nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> is why they resort to insults.

Nope. Those who are not Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are not
'haters' or 'trolls', they just call the first group on their bogus
arguments, by refering to trusted sources instead of the biased
'memories' of the first group.

> > The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> > 1984.
>
> yes, they were, to wildly different market segments, for wildly
> different use cases.

Your usual dodging, diverting and moving goalposts duly noted. (Who
the heck do you think you're fooling with these utterly transparent,
lame tactics?)

Your claim was not about market or use, but about command line versus
GUI.

Fact is, *both* Mac and VWS were GUI and *both* were introduced in
1984.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD.

[nospam]

In article <skmjvo...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
> > >
> > > As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> > > history.
> >
> > nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> > history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> > is why they resort to insults.
>
> Nope. Those who are not Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are not
> 'haters' or 'trolls', they just call the first group on their bogus
> arguments, by refering to trusted sources instead of the biased
> 'memories' of the first group.

those who call others fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are haters and
trolls. it's an ad hominem attack because they have zero facts to
refute anything.

worse, the fact that you consider those who actually lived it to not be
a trusted source, even calling it 'biased memories', puts you even
deeper into the hater/troll category.

the reality is that you know very little about apple, its products and
its history and it's quite obvious that you're pretending that you do.

> Your claim was not about market or use, but about command line versus
> GUI.

correct.

> Fact is, *both* Mac and VWS were GUI and *both* were introduced in
> 1984.

that was never in dispute. lots of things were introduced in 1984.

the fact is that the mac changed the entire industry. vax/vms did not.

nor did xerox parc, nor did other gui attempts, such as visi-on, gem,
workbench, x-windows etc. all of those were very primitive compared to
the mac.

your problem is that you consider all guis to be equivalent. they are
not. this is largely due to your deep unfamiliarity with apple and its
products.

as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
add-on to an existing command line os. this was a first in the
industry, among many other firsts about the mac and mac os that were
later copied by others.

[Alan]

Nope. I haven't nym-shifted. That's a lie.

:-)

[sms]

On 10/19/2021 4:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
>> said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
>> different story.
>
> "he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
> was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
> 'Alan'.

I see.

Why do people persist in arguing with these trolls who just make stuff
up as they go along? Just filter them out and be done with it.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

[sms]

On 10/19/2021 5:16 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Your usual dodging, diverting and moving goalposts duly noted. (Who
> the heck do you think you're fooling with these utterly transparent,
> lame tactics?)

“Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much.” — Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe

[nospam]

In article <skmrr1$289$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Why do people persist in arguing with these trolls who just make stuff
> up as they go along?

projection.

almost everything of what you say about apple is wrong. once in a while
you get something correct, mostly due to luck.

you are the perfect example of making things up as you go along.
examples include face id requiring room lights to work (which is
hilarious how wrong it is), passcodes being limited to 6 numbers,
in-screen fingerprint sensors being secure and much more. it's hard to
keep track of how much you get wrong. anyone who used an iphone for a
few minutes knows you're full of shit.

[Jolly Roger]

"Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" — Kevin Malone,
Dunder Mifflin

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Frank Slootweg]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 4:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
> >> said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
> >> different story.
> >
> > "he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
> > was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
> > 'Alan'.
>
> I see.
>
> Why do people persist in arguing with these trolls who just make stuff
> up as they go along? Just filter them out and be done with it.

FWIW, for quite some time, I no longer argue with them, because
they're dishonest compulsive arguers.

But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.

If they respond to my posts, I either ignore them or give a single
slap, as - as you saw/noted - happened today.

Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
their compulsive arguing.

> "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and

> beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

[nospam]

In article <sknbfd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
> they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.

that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
any of your claims, which is why you resort to insults.

> Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
> subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
> goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
> their compulsive arguing.

major projection.

claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and
desperate as it gets.

[allspam]

In article <news:191020211652251036%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
> any of your claims,

Cat.

> is about as dishonest and desperate as it gets.

Kettle.

> which is why you resort to insults.

Black.

[allspam]

In article <news:191020211301138697%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> once in a while you get something correct, mostly due to luck.

Cat.

> you are the perfect example of making things up as you go along.

Kettle.

> it's hard to keep track of how much you get wrong.

Black.

[allspam]

In article <news:191020211038304976%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> it's an ad hominem attack because they have zero facts to
> refute anything.

Cat.

> the reality is that you know very little about apple, its products and
> its history and it's quite obvious that you're pretending that you do.

Kettle.

> this is largely due to your deep unfamiliarity with apple and its
> products.

Black.

[allspam]

In article <news:181020211724305747%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> history

Cat.

> because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> is why they resort to insults.

Kettle.

> comparing the two is bizarre.

Black.

[JF Mezei]

On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:

> as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
> add-on to an existing command line os.

Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
GUI. The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
app converted screen to graphics mode.

These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
did exist prior to Mac).

Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
(you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

[Alan]

On 2021-10-19 10:16 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:
>
>> as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
>> add-on to an existing command line os.
>
>
> Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
> GUI.

Which is a straw man...

...because no one said that.

> The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
> the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
> the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
> app converted screen to graphics mode.
>
> These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
> have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
> did exist prior to Mac).
>
> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

You have no clue.

[sms]

On 10/19/2021 10:16 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

When I worked for Xerox we had a method of using daisy wheel printers to
print vector graphics. It was called HyPlot.

[Frank Slootweg]

Yeah, like the HP 2648A Graphics Terminal, introduced in July of 1977,
i.e. nearly 7 years earlier (than the Apple GUI).

HP 264X series terminals
<http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=240>

However, I would call that 'graphics', but not 'GUI', at least not by
today's standards.

That brings up the question of what does the 'first' GUI need to have,
to be considered as such? Do they need to have all the WIMP elements
(Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) or a subset, and if a subset, which
subset(s)?

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sknbfd...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
> > they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.
>
> that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
> any of your claims, which is why you resort to insults.

<SLAP>

Dear confused,

I didn't make any "claims", I just quoted information from reputable
sources of information (mainly Wikipedia).

And any insults are a figment of your imagination. "Apple fanbois/
seeds/zealots/loons" is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Don't
like it, don't be/act_like one.

> > Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
> > subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
> > goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
> > their compulsive arguing.
>
> major projection.
>
> claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and
> desperate as it gets.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't actually made any such claim.
It's just your misrepresentation of what I *actually* said, which makes
it ... dishonest.

If you think I made such a claim, you surely can quote it, can't you!?

</SLAP>

EOD.

[Alan]

It's an interesting topic...

...but since it's completely off topic for CMA, I expect Java Joke to
come swooping in and declare you guilty.

:-)

(I do think the first true GUI—for some value of "true"—probably came
from Xerox PARC).

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/10/2021 19.04, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-10-18 5:39 a.m., Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 04.27, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-17 4:19 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>
>>>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>>>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>>>> influence
>>>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>>>
>>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
>>
>> No success at all. Nobody used it here. Everybody was waiting for the
>> PC, and when it appeared, it was an explosion.
>>
>>
>
> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?

You get it that the USA is not the entire world?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/10/2021 20.29, Rod Speed wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>> Alan wrote
>>> Robin Goodfellow wrote
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>
>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>
>>>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>>>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>>>> influence
>>>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>>>
>>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
>>
>> No success at all. Nobody used it here.
>

> That’s bullshit and your dinosaur of a country is irrelevant anyway.

>
>> Everybody was waiting for the PC,
>

> They had no idea it was coming so couldn’t have waited for it.

>
>> and when it appeared, it was an explosion.
>

> That happened everywhere, essentially because it meant that
> the PC wasn’t just something from a previously unknown
> garage operation which may or may not work out to be viable.
>
>
> What are you personally going to do now that prostitution
> is going to be stamped out in your country ?


you must be out of reasonable reasons when you resort to personal insults.

You lost.


>
> Guess you can just go across the border when you need to.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan]

Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.

:-)

But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
didn't happen...

...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.

And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
(large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
get them done for them.

The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
a personal computer in due course...

...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
completely locked down and proprietary.

That was IBM's MO.

[nospam]

In article <90194i-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
> >>
> >> No success at all. Nobody used it here. Everybody was waiting for the
> >> PC, and when it appeared, it was an explosion.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
> > Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
>
> You get it that the USA is not the entire world?

you get that apple sells computers worldwide, even back then?

[nospam]

In article <sksll1$qd8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:

> >> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
> >> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
> >
> > You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>
> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>
> :-)
>
> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
> didn't happen...
>
> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>
> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
> get them done for them.
>
> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
> a personal computer in due course...
>
> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
> completely locked down and proprietary.

> That was IBM's MO.

and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.

the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
sorts of stuff for it too.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-21 2:39 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <sksll1$qd8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
>>>> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
>>>
>>> You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>>
>> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
>> didn't happen...
>>
>> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>>
>> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
>> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
>> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
>> get them done for them.
>>
>> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
>> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
>> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
>> a personal computer in due course...
>>
>> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
>> completely locked down and proprietary.
>
>> That was IBM's MO.
>
> and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
impossible.

>
> meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
> the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.
>
> the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
> sorts of stuff for it too.

But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that
reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.

[nospam]

In article <sksmvq$1dim$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote:

> >> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
> >> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
> >> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
> >> get them done for them.
> >>
> >> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
> >> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
> >> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
> >> a personal computer in due course...
> >>
> >> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
> >> completely locked down and proprietary.
> >
> >> That was IBM's MO.
> >
> > and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.
>
> The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
> publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
> impossible.
>
> >
> > meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
> > the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.
> >
> > the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
> > sorts of stuff for it too.
>
> But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that
> reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.

that only prevented making mac clones.

as i said, apple published schematics of the ports, timing diagrams and
even sample code to talk directly to the hardware.

numerous third party developers designed hardware devices for the mac
without needing to reverse engineer anything.

[Rod Speed]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

It isn't an insult.

> You lost.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Alan <no...@nope.com> wrote

>> >> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
>> >> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
>> >
>> > You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>>
>> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
>> didn't happen...
>>
>> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>>
>> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
>> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
>> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
>> get them done for them.
>>
>> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
>> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
>> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
>> a personal computer in due course...
>>
>> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
>> completely locked down and proprietary.
>
>> That was IBM's MO.
>
> and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

Nope, the code was in the original IBM PC manual.

> meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open,
> including schematics in the user manual.

Same with the original IBM PC.

> lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.

Same with the original IBM PC.

Plenty just copied the schematics and made their own cards and motherboard
too.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote