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

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

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

Like I said...

Nothing like what you said. AND you carefully deleted the crucial bit,

...
With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was integrated with the operating system,

Which clearly says that initially it was NOT part of the OS.

That is completely and utterly flagrantly dishonest.

akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel.

Nothing like it in fact.

I ran MultiFinder back in the day, I know a little more about it than Wikipedia does.

You clearly dont. And are flagrantly dishonest to boot.

 

[Joe Thompson]

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

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.

Like I said...

akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel.

I ran MultiFinder back in the day, I know a little more about it than
Wikipedia does. -- 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

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:46:54 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Well that didn't take long this time.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

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

With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was
integrated with the operating system,

Which clearly says that initially it was NOT part of the OS.

MORE of your flagrant dishonesty.

Lets have a look at it before your flagrantly dishonest editing shall we ?

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.

Like I said...

Nothing like what you said. AND you carefully deleted the crucial bit,

...
With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was integrated with the operating system,

Which clearly says that initially it was NOT part of the OS.

You're a flagrantly dishonest complete fucking arsehole.

No, it says it was distributed as an extension.

And that it wasnt integrated with the OS until much later.

Unless you take the extraordinarily narrow view that anything
not in the System file was not part of the OS (in which case
most of the functionality of a base Mac System install was
not part of the OS, which is patently ridiculous),

Having fun thrashing that straw man, arsehole ?

MultiFinder was as much a part of the OS (though perhaps
not the OS kernel) as anything else in the System Folder.

PIty about the significant change with System 7, you flagrantly dishonest arsehole.

And whatever it was OS wise, THAT WAS WELL AFTER MULTITASKING APPEARED IN WINDOWS.

Bullshit and lie your way out of that, arsehole.

 

[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
With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was
integrated with the operating system,

Which clearly says that initially it was NOT part of the OS.

No, it says it was distributed as an extension. Unless you take the
extraordinarily narrow view that anything not in the System file was not
part of the OS (in which case most of the functionality of a base Mac
System install was not part of the OS, which is patently ridiculous),
MultiFinder was as much a part of the OS (though perhaps not the OS
kernel) as anything else in the System Folder. -- 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

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:19:02 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

And whatever it was OS wise, THAT WAS WELL AFTER MULTITASKING APPEARED IN
WINDOWS.

Of course proper pre-emptive multitasking first appeared for home
computers in the Sinclair QL in 1984, followed shortly by the Amiga in
1985. Both of these were earlier than Windows 1.0 with it's rather poor
implementation of cooperative multitasking and a long time before
pre-emptive multitasking arrived for Windows in 1995.

Now just in case you're going to claim that cooperative
multitasking on the desktop was an MS innovation - Apple got there nearly
two years earlier with the Lisa, and DRI got there even earlier with MP/M
in 1979.

Sorry Rod - multitasking on a personal computer was not even
remotely close to being a Microsoft innovation. Got any other candidates ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

 

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

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

And whatever it was OS wise, THAT WAS WELL
AFTER MULTITASKING APPEARED IN WINDOWS.

Of course proper pre-emptive multitasking

Wasnt what was being discussed.

Now just in case you're going to claim that cooperative
multitasking on the desktop was an MS innovation -

Nope, never ever did. I JUST said that it showed up in Win before it did with the Mac.

Sorry Rod - multitasking on a personal computer was
not even remotely close to being a Microsoft innovation.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

 

[Andreas Eder]

Hi Rod,

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

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.
But you are free - and actually well advised - to use any one of
more than a dozen different GUIs that run on Linux. I for example
am using xmonad.

'Andreas

--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam.

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:14:10 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

As far as I can see all your suggestions have been debunked, apart
from vague phrases with no content. So please once more let us see an
example of Microsoft innovation - here just to set the ball rolling I'll
give you the only one I know of.

BASIC in a ROM as the command interface of a microcomputer was
AFAICT a genuine Microsoft innovation.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

 

[jmfbahciv]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:46:54 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Well that didn't take long this time.

He's been practicing a lot in sci.physics over the last 6 days.

Boring!

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Rod Speed 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.

Which was similar to the OS on the PDP-8.

Indeed, Windows was not an innnovation, just a ripoff of Xerox and
Apple. Networking in windows (remember Winsock?) derived from BSD.

Winsock wasn't from MS, it was put together by a group of
people chatting on Compuserve - MS never even implemented
the first version of it (that was left to Trumpet to do).

Pity about what happened later.

Network File Systems? First done by Novell with Netware.

I think DEC FAL was a bit earlier (ie. earlier than PCs).

Much earlier in fact. But was nothing like what Win ended up with.

There was code before FAL which could transfer files between systems.
Please note that this ability to transfer is not a network file system.

Where's NetBUI today (an example of innovation gone bad)?
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.

I think we are in strong agreement about how little innovation has come out
of MS.

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

You are ignorant.

/BAH

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/22/2011 4:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

Thats a lie. They clearly did with the browser, and with the
UI that even Linux has copied extensively now, and with
networking that even stupid users can use, etc etc etc.

Xerox? Apple? Mosaic?

The consumers clearly felt otherwise. You get to like that or lump it.

The consumers never had a real choice.

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/22/2011 7:01 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

You're wrong about everything, as usual.

You should write a book. You could turn the history of personal
computers on its ear with this previously unknown information.

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/22/2011 9:50 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

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.

Burroughs had a lot of great stuff earlier than most. 5500 MCP was a
wonder compared to OS/360. First virtual memory system I ever worked
on. It's a pity they didn't succeed. I'm looking forward to someone
doing a emulator for one of their systems, now that MCP source and some
of the compilers are available.

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/22/2011 10:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Of course IE has innovated. How do you think all the security holes got
in there?

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/23/2011 2:33 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:46:54 +1100
"Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Well that didn't take long this time.

Wait for it ... no one's called anyone a Nazi, yet.

 

[Peter Flass]

On 1/23/2011 7:00 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:14:10 +1100
"Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

As far as I can see all your suggestions have been debunked, apart
from vague phrases with no content. So please once more let us see an
example of Microsoft innovation - here just to set the ball rolling I'll
give you the only one I know of.

BASIC in a ROM as the command interface of a microcomputer was
AFAICT a genuine Microsoft innovation.

TI 99/4?

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:04:22 -0500
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:

On 1/23/2011 7:00 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:14:10 +1100
"Rod Speed"<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

As far as I can see all your suggestions have been debunked,
apart from vague phrases with no content. So please once more let us
see an example of Microsoft innovation - here just to set the ball
rolling I'll give you the only one I know of.

BASIC in a ROM as the command interface of a microcomputer was
AFAICT a genuine Microsoft innovation.


TI 99/4?

That was 1979, Altair BASIC was 1975 (but that was on paper tape)
by 1977 there were a number of ROM based machines using it.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

 

[Esra Sdrawkcab]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:00:12 -0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:14:10 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

As far as I can see all your suggestions have been debunked, apart
from vague phrases with no content. So please once more let us see an
example of Microsoft innovation - here just to set the ball rolling I'll
give you the only one I know of.

BASIC in a ROM as the command interface of a microcomputer was
AFAICT a genuine Microsoft innovation.

Marketing, not technical innovation was/is? their main forte.

--
"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"

 

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

Got any other candidates ?

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

As far as I can see all your suggestions have been debunked,

Another lie, you havent debunked even a single one.

apart from vague phrases with no content.

More of your lies.

So please once more let us see an example of Microsoft innovation

Already rubbed your nose in a list of them.

- here just to set the ball rolling I'll give you the only one I know of.

Your problem.

BASIC in a ROM as the command interface of a microcomputer
was AFAICT a genuine Microsoft innovation.

It aint the only one.