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

jmfbahciv wrote
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.
All of them for the smaller machines have similaritys.

In fact most of the 8s didnt even have an OS at all.

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.
Any decent network has to be able to do that sort of basic stuff.

Using that mindlessly silly line, only the first network was ever an innovation.

Please note that this ability to transfer is not a network file system.
No one ever said it was.

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.
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
 
Peter Flass wrote
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?
None of those had networking that even stupid users could setup.

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

The consumers never had a real choice.
Corse they did. And they certainly do now when the main alternative is quite literally free.
 
Andreas Eder wrote

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

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.
Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.

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.
Irrelevant to the FACT that quite a few of the GUIs that run on Linux use bits of the Win UI.
 
Peter Flass wrote
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, 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?
Done by Microsoft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI_BASIC_(TI_99/4A)
 
Esra Sdrawkcab wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> 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, 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.
Corse we never ever saw anything like that from Apple, eh ?
 
On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Andreas Eder wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
How odd that Linux has used so much of the UI seen with Win.

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.
This is nonresponsive. The point is that Linux runs with many interfaces
other than KDE and Gnome. So while those two specific programs may look
sort of Windowsy (or sort of Macish, or whatever else you want to compare
them to), that doesn't mean that Linux does.

Irrelevant to the FACT that quite a few of the GUIs that run on
Linux use bits of the Win UI.
You sure do like to accuse people of lying without ruling out the possibility
that they are, say, mistaken, or simply disagree with you about matters of
opinion, and use the all-caps word FACT for something that's pretty much an
opinion.

You haven't even offered a meaningful claim here, because you haven't really
defined what you mean as "bits of the Win UI". You mean, say, rectangular
screen areas with defined borders? Hardly specific to Windows.

If you want to advance a claim, define some terms. Start by describing what
you think makes something "bits of the Win UI" rather than "user interface
elements which are substantially identical across every major UI ever seen".

Certainly, I've seen a few skins to give X window decorations that look a
bit like various versions of Windows, as well as skins to make X look like
Mac OS 7, Mac OS 9, OS X, NextStep, BeOS, and AmigaDOS. I am not sure that
any of this meaningfully qualifies as "bits of the <foo> UI", because none
of them really behave all that much like the systems they look like.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Flass wrote
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?

None of those had networking that even stupid users could setup.
Okay, this is the point at which I stop taking you seriously, because you've
just failed to pick up a category. Only two of those were vendors. One of
them was a browser, and thus not even in the right category to be "had
networking that even stupid users could setup".

Furthermore, it just ain't so. Back in the OS 6 days, I saw stupid users
set up networking very easily with no problem at all on a Mac. Plug the cable
into two machines, tell them to "turn on appletalk", and there you go,
network.

The consumers never had a real choice.

Corse they did.
You might want to define what you mean by a "real choice". Back in the day,
I once spent a day and a half trying to find a vendor who was willing to sell
me a non-Windows laptop.

And they certainly do now when the main alternative is quite literally free.
That doesn't necessarily create a "real choice" for most people. A real
choice is what you get from what you see on the shelves in a store. It also
has to live within constraints such as "the specific software we have to run
can run on this".

But you know what? Even if you have a point, you're too much of a jerk about
it to be fun to talk to. One of the foundational tools in effective
discussion is called the "principle of charity", and you haven't got any hint
of it. I love talking to people who have interesting opinions and are
willing to argue for them. I don't like being insulted by someone whose
purpose in posting is clearly to try to make himself feel important and smart
at the expense of other people.

It's Usenet. Whatever you know, someone in the group knows more than you.
However smart you are, someone in the group is smarter than you. Whatever
your personal experience, someone in the group has more relevant personal
experience. I could gloat about how well I know C, but dmr's been seen to
post to Usenet occasionally.

Smart people learn from this to be humble and polite. People who are arrogant
and rude are, essentially without exception, not smart enough to be
interesting.

*plonk*

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
On 2011-01-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course IE has innovated. How do you think all the security holes got
in there?
You make a good point here, actually. I mean, a serious one.

I believe Microsoft's decision to build a mail client which would
instantly execute code from incoming email without any sort of user
interaction was, in fact, a pure innovation. No one had ever done it
before that I know of.

Basically, Microsoft single-handedly invented the botnet and the email
virus. Actually, I'm not quite sure that's fair. Technically, the GOOD
TIMES jokers *invented* the email virus, as an abstract concept, but
Microsoft was by far the first company to actually implement the necessary
infrastructure.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Andreas Eder wrote

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

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.
GNOME at least will run on Solaris or *BSD. -- 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 wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Andreas Eder wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.

GNOME at least will run on Solaris or *BSD.
Still just *nix.
 
Seebs wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Andreas Eder wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.

This is nonresponsive.
Wrong.

The point is that Linux runs with many interfaces other than KDE and Gnome.
The real point is that so much of the Win UI has ended up in *nix GUIs.

So while those two specific programs
They aint programs, they are GUIs.

may look sort of Windowsy (or sort of Macish,
or whatever else you want to compare them to),
They look a hell of a lot more like Win than anything else.

that doesn't mean that Linux does.
Never said it did.

Irrelevant to the FACT that quite a few of the
GUIs that run on Linux use bits of the Win UI.

You sure do like to accuse people of lying without ruling
out the possibility that they are, say, mistaken, or simply
disagree with you about matters of opinion,
I only say they are lying when they are. I dont say
that when we just disagree about matters of opinion.

and use the all-caps word FACT for
something that's pretty much an opinion.
That particular point is NOT an opinion, its a fact.

You haven't even offered a meaningful claim here, because
you haven't really defined what you mean as "bits of the Win UI".
How odd that you havent defined a damned thing yourself.

You mean, say, rectangular screen areas with defined borders?
Nope.

Hardly specific to Windows.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

If you want to advance a claim, define some terms.
How odd that you havent defined a damned thing yourself.

Start by describing what you think makes something "bits
of the Win UI" rather than "user interface elements which
are substantially identical across every major UI ever seen".
Go and fuck yourself. You are welcome to do things any way you like. Me too.

Certainly, I've seen a few skins to give X window decorations
They aint decorations. And you havent defined decorations anyway.

that look a bit like various versions of Windows, as well as skins to make
X look like Mac OS 7, Mac OS 9, OS X, NextStep, BeOS, and AmigaDOS.
They aint just skins.

I am not sure that any of this meaningfully qualifies as "bits of the <foo> UI",
Your problem.

because none of them really behave all that much like the systems they look like.
Thats just plain wrong with the UI.
 
On 23 Jan 2011 20:28:15 GMT
Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:

On 2011-01-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course IE has innovated. How do you think all the security holes
got in there?

You make a good point here, actually. I mean, a serious one.

I believe Microsoft's decision to build a mail client which would
instantly execute code from incoming email without any sort of user
interaction was, in fact, a pure innovation. No one had ever done it
before that I know of.
Hmm good point - I remember telling people that the idea of a virus
that spread by email was a myth not long before Microsoft did that.

--
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/
 
Seebs wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Peter Flass wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Peter Flass wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Charlie Gibbs wrote
greenaum@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) writes

This was (AFAIK IIRC ETC) the cause of one of the legal suits
against them. I remember at the time, Gates's moaning to the press
about how he was being picked on... "If the Federal Government
demands I give away 95% of my money to charity, I'll do it". As if
that was one of the government's powers, or a likely outcome to
the case. He didn't offer to run his business in a less predatory
and monopolistic way, or to stop buying up any company that looks
like it might compete with him, and either absorb or neglect it to death.

Bill Gates would repeatedly whine about how the
government was stifling Microsoft's right to innovate,

Not that they ever have innovated, of course,

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?

None of those had networking that even stupid users could setup.

Okay, this is the point at which I stop taking you seriously,
You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.

because you've just failed to pick up a category.
Another lie.

Only two of those were vendors.
Never said a word about vendors.

One of them was a browser, and thus not even in the right
category to be "had networking that even stupid users could setup".
Pity thats what he tossed that list into, a comment about that.

Furthermore, it just ain't so.
We'll see...

Back in the OS 6 days, I saw stupid users set up
networking very easily with no problem at all on a
Mac. Plug the cable into two machines, tell them
to "turn on appletalk", and there you go, network.
Irrelevant to whether MS has ever innovated. That does
NOT mean that its the first time that approach was ever
seen, particularly when it was implemented quite differently.

The consumers never had a real choice.

Corse they did.

You might want to define what you mean by a "real choice".
How odd that you havent ever defined a damned thing yourself.

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.
But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

And they certainly do now when the main alternative is quite literally free.

That doesn't necessarily create a "real choice" for most people.
Most people are completely irrelevant. That wasnt the original claim.

A real choice is what you get from what you see on the shelves in a store.
And you can do just with the main free alternative OS.

It also has to live within constraints such as "the
specific software we have to run can run on this".
Most just use what comes with the hardware.

<reams of your puerile attempt at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.
 
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:22:29 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Andreas Eder wrote

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

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.
Both run on various BSDs, Solaris and Mac OS X to my certain
knowledge and should be able to run on just about anything with X11 support.

--
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/
 
"Jim Brown" <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q3lb1FosgU1@mid.individual.net...

Roddles with a different name. Those turns of phrase are a dead give
away.....
 
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ihhc9q$jev$3@news.eternal-september.org...
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.
They had innovations, but any in computing eh Roddles????????
 
[Insert smileys as needed.]

Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
On 2011-01-23, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course IE has innovated. How do you think all the security holes got
in there?

You make a good point here, actually. I mean, a serious one.

I believe Microsoft's decision to build a mail client which would
instantly execute code from incoming email without any sort of user
interaction was, in fact, a pure innovation. No one had ever done it
before that I know of.
Don't forget Berkeley Mail!

Basically, Microsoft single-handedly invented the botnet and the email
virus. Actually, I'm not quite sure that's fair. Technically, the GOOD
TIMES jokers *invented* the email virus, as an abstract concept, but
Microsoft was by far the first company to actually implement the necessary
infrastructure.
Nope, Berkeley and 'we' (Usenet/News) did!
 
On 2011-01-23, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Flass wrote
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?

None of those had networking that even stupid users could setup.
Still demonstrating that you're a drooling retard, eh, Rod?

A Xerox 8010/6085 user could set up networking by plugging their
machine in and powering it up. In 1982.

--
Today is Pungenday, the 23rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3177
Science flies people to the moon; Religion flies people into skyscrapers.
 
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Andreas Eder wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

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

Well, not Linux, but maybe Gnome or KDE.

Mindless hair splitting. Neither runs on anything else.

Both run on various BSDs, Solaris and Mac OS X to my certain knowledge
All *nix. More mindless hair splitting.
 
Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
Basically, Microsoft single-handedly invented the botnet and the email
virus. Actually, I'm not quite sure that's fair. Technically, the GOOD
TIMES jokers *invented* the email virus, as an abstract concept, but
Microsoft was by far the first company to actually implement the necessary
infrastructure.
there was xmas exec on bitnet in nov87 ... vmshare archive
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/browse?fn=CHRISTMA&ft=PROB
old risk digest
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/5.81.html#subj1

almost exactly a year before morris worm (nov88)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm

the xmas exec is basically social engineering ... distributing a
compromised executable and getting people to load & execute.

this is slightly different from convention for automatic execution.
that grew up with various office applications that evolved on local,
private, safe, closed business networks. this infrastructure was then
transferred to the wild anarchy of the internet w/o the necessary safety
and countermeasures (aka just reading an email could result in automatic
execution)

bitnet (along with EARN in europe) was higher education network (significantly
underwritten by IBM and using similar technology that was used for the
corporate internal network) ... past posts mentioning bitnet &/or earn
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet

some old email by person charged with setting up EARN:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#email840320

the internal network was larger than the arpanet/internet from just
about the beginning until possibly late '85 or early '86. misc.
past posts mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

I was blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network in
the late 70s and early 80s. The folklore is that when the executive
committee was told about online computer conferencing (and the internal
network), 5of6 wanted to fire me.

Later, somewhat as a result, a research was paid to study how I
communicated ... got copies of all my incoming & outgoing email, logs of
all my instant messages, sat in the back of my office for nine months
taking notes face-to-face and phone conversations (sometimes went with
me to meetings). This also turned into stanford phd thesis and material
for some number of papers and books. misc. past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#cmc

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

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top