Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

"SG1" <lostitall@the.races> writes:

As for an operating system (OS) for the new computers, since Microsoft had
never written an operating system before, Gates had suggested that IBM
investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), written
by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Kindall had his Ph.D. in computers and
had written the most successful operating system of the time, selling over
600,000 copies of CP/M, his OS set the standard at that time.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#3 Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall

gone 404 ... but lives on the wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20071011100440/http://www.khet.net/gmc/docs/museum/en_cpmName.html

kildall using cp67/cms at npg school (wiki mentions he fulfilled draft
obligation by teaching at npg)

melinda's virtual machine history going back to science center, cp40 &
cp67.
http://web.me.com/melinda.varian/

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

 

[SG1]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q1g3tFsdtU1@mid.individual.net...
Some Heroic fellow proudly called Sir Galahad 1st wrote about Roddle's
puerile shite. And proved it to be the usual drivel. Keep it up Roddles and
you just may graduate preschool.

 

[Rod Speed]

SG1 wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

Not that they ever have innovated, of course, but they'd like to know they could if they ever decided to.

Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally developed by MS.

Furthermore it was originally close to a copy of CP/M.

Pigs arse it was.

Roddles google ms dos the beginning

No point, I know that DOS was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

In 1980, IBM first approached Bill Gates and Microsoft, to discuss
the state of home computers and Microsoft products. Gates gave IBM a
few ideas on what would make a great home computer, among them to
have Basic written into the ROM chip. Microsoft had already produced
several versions of Basic for different computer system beginning with the Altair, so Gates was more than happy to
write a version for IBM.

Irrelevant to the stupid claim that DOS is a copy of CP/M.

As for an operating system (OS) for the new computers, since
Microsoft had never written an operating system before, Gates had
suggested that IBM investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), written by Gary Kildall of
Digital Research.

And what he bought when IBM chose to not go that route was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

Kindall had his Ph.D. in computers and had written the most successful operating system of the time, selling over
600,000 copies of CP/M, his OS set the standard at that time.

And what he bought when IBM chose to not go that route was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

Gee whiz Roddles wrong again.

Easy to claim. Pity you havent got a fucking clue about the basics.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Scott Lurndal]

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
[...]
Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally developed by MS.
Indeed, Windows was not an innnovation, just a ripoff of Xerox and Apple.

and HP.

Networking in windows (remember Winsock?) derived from BSD.
Network File Systems? First done by Novell with Netware.

Nope, remote file access was done well before PCs - hence
Novell/Netware - even existed. (BTW, upper-casing Network File Systems
and spelling it that exact way, is a bad idea, because it implies
*Sun*'s NFS crap.)

Well, the topic was Apple I, which implies consumer=grade systems.

Burroughs (PPoE) had the capability to share files between
multiple systems (a al NFS/AppleTalk/NetWare) in the 1960's
with up to 8 hosts accessing a single spindle using FPM (file
protect memory) and later SSP (Shared Systems Processor)
for block-level lockout.

scott

 

[Scott Lurndal]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

IE? First done by Mosiac, then Netscape.

IE and Netscape were originally derived from Mosaic.

And then moved on a hell of a long way past that.

Yet IE is still trying to catch up to Firefox.

Just because a couple of clowns claim something, doesnt make it gospel.

No truer words were ever spoken.

 

[Rod Speed]

SG1 wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scott Lurndal wrote

Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally
developed by MS. Indeed, Windows was not an innnovation,
just a ripoff of Xerox and Apple.

Thats a lie, there was a lot more too the later Wins than anything Xerox had.

Apple didnt even have multitasking for quite a while.

They had multitasking from the advent of MultiFinder in 1987

Win had it long before that.

(or arguably even earlier with Switcher in 1985, but I don't know if Switcher
allowed applications to actually execute instructions while backgrounded.)

It didnt.

Dunno what you consider "quite a while".

Years after the Mac first appeared.

Switcher was done on the Mac about six months after Andy Hertzfeld saw Memory Shift
running on DOS. Switcher was out the door about 7 months before Windows 1.0.

Pity that aint multitasking.

Networking in windows (remember Winsock?) derived from BSD.

Nope, not with networking that even stupid users could use.

Actually, yes.

Actually, nope.

Winsock was a vast improvement on its successor, Win95 Dial-Up Networking.

I wasnt talking about DUN.

With Winsock the majority of the configuration was done on a
single screen (all of it unless you needed a special dial script).

I wasnt talking about DUN or Winsock either.

And even later Windows' network stacks acknowledged
their BSD heritage in places like the HOSTS file.

We werent discussing what was common, we were clearly discussing innovation.

Networking with Win was much easier for stupid users than Novell etc.

IE? First done by Mosiac, then Netscape.

Quite a bit of the detail was nothing like either.

IE was actually licensed from Spyglass, which in turn had licensed bits related to Mosaic from NCSA. So it was a
lineal descendant of Mosaic.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether MS did any innovation with it.

Microsoft only innovates in monopolization techniques.

How odd that Linux has used so much of the UI seen with Win.

Which I find frustrating, as if I wanted Windows on my desktop, I'd run that.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether MS did any innovation.

Excel is nothing like Lotus and Word is nothing like Wordpervert
either except they are both apps in the same area.

Windows 1.01 (June 1985)

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS multitasking anyway.

Windows 1.0 is a 16-bit graphical operating environment released on
November 20, 1985. It was Microsoft's first attempt to implement a
multi-tasking graphical user interface-based operating environment on
the PC platform.

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS multitasking anyway.

Windows 2.03 (December 1987)

Windows 2.0 is a version of the Microsoft Windows graphical user
interface-based operating environment that superseded Windows 1.0.
Windows 2.0 was said to more closely match Microsoft's pre-release publicity for Windows 1.0, than Windows 1.0 did.

Irrelevant to the fact that multitasking showed up on Win well before it did on the Mac.

Windows 2.1 (June 1988)

Windows 2.1x is a family of Microsoft Windows graphical user
interface-based operating environments.
Less than a year after the release of Windows 2.0, Windows/286 2.1 and
Windows/386 2.1 were released on May 27, 1988.

Irrelevant to the fact that multitasking showed up on Win well before it did on the Mac.

Windows 3.0 (May 1990)

Windows 3.0 is the third major release of Microsoft Windows, and came
out on May 22, 1990. It became the first widely successful version of
Windows and a powerful rival to Apple Macintosh and the Commodore
Amiga on the GUI front. It was succeeded by Windows 3.1.

Irrelevant to the fact that multitasking showed up on Win well before it did on the Mac.

Windows 3.1 (April 1992)

Windows 3.1x is a graphical user interface and a part of the Microsoft
Windows software family. Several editions were released between 1992
and 1994, succeeding Windows 3.0. This family of Windows can run in
either Standard or 386 Enhanced memory modes. The exception is
Windows for Workgroups 3.11, which can only officially run in 386
Enhanced mode

Irrelevant to the fact that multitasking showed up on Win well before it did on the Mac.

Its only just now showed up on the iphone 4, LONG after it showed up in Win, decades later in fact.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Scott Lurndal wrote

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote

Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally
developed by MS. Indeed, Windows was not an innnovation,
just a ripoff of Xerox and Apple.

and HP.

Networking in windows (remember Winsock?) derived from BSD.
Network File Systems? First done by Novell with Netware.

Nope, remote file access was done well before PCs - hence
Novell/Netware - even existed. (BTW, upper-casing Network File
Systems and spelling it that exact way, is a bad idea, because it
implies *Sun*'s NFS crap.)

Well, the topic was Apple I,

Nope, that bit wasnt.

which implies consumer=grade systems.

Networking doesnt, particularly between separate machines.

Burroughs (PPoE) had the capability to share files between
multiple systems (a al NFS/AppleTalk/NetWare) in the 1960's
with up to 8 hosts accessing a single spindle using FPM (file
protect memory) and later SSP (Shared Systems Processor)
for block-level lockout.

Irrelevant to whether Win networking was anything
like what Novell did, particularly for stupid users.

 

[Rod Speed]

Scott Lurndal wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

IE? First done by Mosiac, then Netscape.

IE and Netscape were originally derived from Mosaic.

And then moved on a hell of a long way past that.

Yet IE is still trying to catch up to Firefox.

Irrelevant to whether there has been any INNOVATION with IE.

 

[SG1]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q1jjvFh4vU1@mid.individual.net...

Its only just now showed up on the iphone 4, LONG after it showed up in
Win, decades later in fact.

The iPhone is Irrelevant, just like Roddles

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
SG1 wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

Not that they ever have innovated, of course, but they'd like to know they could if they ever decided to.

Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally developed by MS.

Furthermore it was originally close to a copy of CP/M.

Pigs arse it was.

Roddles google ms dos the beginning

No point, I know that DOS was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

DOS 1.0 was *very* much like CP/M,

Nothing like a COPY of CP/M.

enough so that Kildall used the similarity as leverage
to get IBM to agree to sell CP/M for the PC as well.

Thats not how that happened. If it really was a COPY of CP/M, he would have sued and won.

DOS 2.0 was a total rewrite.

It was never a COPY of CP/M or even close either.

If it had been, there would have been no need for different versions of the apps.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:

Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
SG1 wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:

Not that they ever have innovated, of course, but they'd like to know they could if they ever decided to.

Indeed, DOS was not an innovation, it wasn't even orignally
developed by MS.

Furthermore it was originally close to a copy of CP/M.

Pigs arse it was.

Roddles google ms dos the beginning

No point, I know that DOS was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

DOS 1.0 was *very* much like CP/M,

Nothing like a COPY of CP/M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS

The most it did was share an api structure etc and had
significant changes in the detail with how CP/M operated,
most obviously with the automatic flushing to disk etc.

Nothing like a COPY of CP/M, it just used a
similar API so it was easy to port apps to it etc.

enough so that Kildall used the similarity as leverage
to get IBM to agree to sell CP/M for the PC as well.

Thats not how that happened. If it really was a COPY of CP/M, he would have sued and won.

DOS 2.0 was a total rewrite.

It was never a COPY of CP/M or even close either.

If it had been, there would have been no need for different versions of the apps.

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS multitasking anyway.

Sure it was.

Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder

It allowed programs to run (actually executing operations)
in the background. Until Win95, Windows didn't support
anything better than MultiFinder's capabilities.

Irrelevant to the FACT that multitasking on Win was there well before MultiFinder.

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS multitasking anyway.

Sure it was.

Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder

It replaced the single-tasking Finder with a multitasking one.
I'd call that "part of the OS",

More fool you. That the shell, not the OS.

akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel.

Nothing like it, actually.

And regardless, multitasking showed up with Win well before MultiFinder anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:

Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS multitasking anyway.

Sure it was.

Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder

It replaced the single-tasking Finder with a multitasking one.
I'd call that "part of the OS",

More fool you. That the shell, not the OS.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder says

MultiFinder was the name of an extension software for the Apple Macintosh,
introduced on August 11, 1987 and included with System Software 5.
....
With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was integrated with the operating system,

akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel.

Nothing like it, actually.

And regardless, multitasking showed up with Win well before MultiFinder anyway.

 

[Joe Thompson]

On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

SG1 wrote
Roddles google ms dos the beginning

No point, I know that DOS was nothing like a copy of CP/M.

DOS 1.0 was *very* much like CP/M, enough so that Kildall used the
similarity as leverage to get IBM to agree to sell CP/M for the PC as
well. DOS 2.0 was a total rewrite. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson -
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe

 

[Joe Thompson]

On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS
multitasking anyway.

Sure it was. It allowed programs to run (actually executing operations)
in the background. Until Win95, Windows didn't support anything better
than MultiFinder's capabilities. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson -
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe

 

[Joe Thompson]

On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Joe Thompson wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Well before MultiFinder as I said, and MultiFinder wasnt OS
multitasking anyway.

Sure it was.

Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiFinder

It replaced the single-tasking Finder with a multitasking one. I'd call
that "part of the OS", akin to installing an extra module in a Linux
kernel. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson -
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe