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

[Joe Thompson]

Scott Lurndal wrote

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

Dunno what you consider "quite a while". 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.

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

Actually, yes. Winsock was a vast improvement on its successor, Win95
Dial-Up Networking. With Winsock the majority of the configuration was
done on a single screen (all of it unless you needed a special dial
script).

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

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.

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. -- Joe

 

[Frank Slootweg]

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.)

Where's NetBUI today (an example of innovation gone bad)?
IE? First done by Mosiac, then Netscape.
The Zune was not an innovation, nor was the Xbox, nor is their cloud.

Microsoft only innovates in monopolization techniques.

s/monopolization/extortion/

 

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote

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

Pigs arse it was.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Scott Lurndal wrote

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

There was a lot less to the early versions of Windows though, and I
have yet to see anything like some of the later Xerox work on using 3D
interfaces effectively rather than as a source of eye candy.

Apple didnt even have multitasking for quite a while.

Windows didn't have real multitasking until Windows 95 and NT,
prior to that it was cooperative multitasking just like MacOS from the
Mac launch in 1984 until OS X. On the PC DesqView was better at
multitasking MSDOS, Windows 2.x and 3.x programs than Windows was.

Of course real multitasking was around in a number of systems much
earlier. It was hardly an innovation when it appeared in desktop computers,
merely a result of the hardware becoming able to support it. The first real
multitasking on a PC was probably Xenix on the 80286.

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

Windows didn't come with TCP/IP based networking from Microsoft
until Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - of course there were TCP/IP stacks for
MSDOS and Windows rather earlier from Trumpet and Crynwr among others.

Networking for stupid users arrived with DHCP which had nothing to
do with MS, networking for really stupid users had to wait for cheap
routers with DHCP servers installed and set up by default.

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

Linux is a unix like kernel it has no UI, or even utilities.

You are probably thinking of KDE or Gnome - a couple of X11 based
GUI desktop environments that are fairly popular with people who started
their use of computers with MS Windows. These environments are designed to
make the transition from Windows easy by presenting a familiar interface to
Windows users.

If you were to see my Linux box you would see something that looks
and acts quite differently, but not as radically differently as say Ion or
Ratpoison. One of the features of the unix family that is completely
missing from Windows is *choice* of UI.

Nope, not seeing anything here pointing to innovation from
Microsoft.

 

[Huge]

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

Actually, Netware was a ripoff of Xerox's network file system. I met someone
once who claimed that some of the code was virtually identical.

Where's NetBUI today (an example of innovation gone bad)?
IE? First done by Mosiac, then Netscape.
The Zune was not an innovation, nor was the Xbox, nor is their cloud.

Microsoft only innovates in monopolization techniques.

Microsoft is a marketing company, not a technology one.

 

[Huge]

I think I had better unkillfile you, since you seem to be spreading lies.

Utter garbage. I worked for Xerox for 11 years, and we fell about laughing
at Windows. (If only we'd known.)

And if you want some evidence, have a look at this;

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/movies/digibarn-tv/gui-movies/xerox/index.html

What were MS doing in 1982?

How odd that you have this back to front.

Nope, not seeing anything here pointing to innovation from
Microsoft.

Quite so. I've never seen any innovation from SmallNFloppy. Maybe Ajax, if
you're being kind. And I'm likely wrong about that.

 

[Huge]

On 2011-01-22, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:

Actually, Netware was a ripoff of Xerox's network file system. I met someone
once who claimed that some of the code was virtually identical.

Someone who had good reason to know, that is, not just some bloke in a pub.

 

[Joe Thompson]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote


Pigs arse it was.

QDOS was a pig's arse? -- Joe

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

There was a lot less to the early versions of Windows though,

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, innovation.

and I have yet to see anything like some of the later Xerox work on
using 3D interfaces effectively rather than as a source of eye candy.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, innovation.

Windows didn't have real multitasking until Windows 95 and NT,

Thats a lie.

prior to that it was cooperative multitasking

Thats a lie, most obviously with hardware.

just like MacOS from the Mac launch in 1984 until OS X.

Nothing like, actually.

On the PC DesqView was better at multitasking MSDOS,
Windows 2.x and 3.x programs than Windows was.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, innovation.

Thats just saying that their innovation was better, not saying that MS didnt have any.

Of course real multitasking was around in a number of systems much earlier.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether MS had that for the PC. Of course they did.

It was hardly an innovation when it appeared in desktop computers,
merely a result of the hardware becoming able to support it.

Using that mindless line, no one ever had any innovation with the PC at all.

The first real multitasking on a PC was probably Xenix on the 80286.

Which just happened to be from MS. Funny that. Hilarious, actually.

Windows didn't come with TCP/IP based networking
from Microsoft until Windows for Workgroups 3.11 -

Still not derived from BSD, as I said.

of course there were TCP/IP stacks for MSDOS and Windows
rather earlier from Trumpet and Crynwr among others.

I wasnt talking about TCP/IP stacks.

Networking for stupid users arrived with DHCP
Wrong.

which had nothing to do with MS, networking for really stupid users had to
wait for cheap routers with DHCP servers installed and set up by default.

Wrong again.

Linux is a unix like kernel it has no UI, or even utilities.

Mindless hair splitting.

You are probably thinking of KDE or Gnome -
Nope.

a couple of X11 based GUI desktop environments that are fairly popular
with people who started their use of computers with MS Windows.

And the default with so many linux distros.

These environments are designed to make the transition from
Windows easy by presenting a familiar interface to Windows users.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim about monopolisation.

If you were to see my Linux box you would see
something that looks and acts quite differently,

Irrelevant to that stupid claim about monopolisation.

but not as radically differently as say Ion or Ratpoison.
One of the features of the unix family that is
completely missing from Windows is *choice* of UI.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim about monopolisation.

Nope, not seeing anything here pointing to innovation from Microsoft.

Just because of your mindless bigotry.

 

[Rod Speed]

Huge wrote

I think I had better unkillfile you, since you seem to be spreading lies.

No one gives a flying red **** what you do or do not read.

Utter garbage. I worked for Xerox for 11 years, and we fell about laughing at Windows.

You couldnt have even seen THE LATER WINs at that time.

(If only we'd known.)

Its obvious which sank beneath the waves. Too much time spent laughing like village eejuts.

And if you want some evidence, have a look at this;

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/movies/digibarn-tv/gui-movies/xerox/index.html

Doesnt say a damned thing ABOUT THE LATER WINs.

What were MS doing in 1982?

What is Xerox doing right now OS wise ? Sweet **** all, thats what.

How odd that you have this back to front.

Pigs arse I do.

Quite so. I've never seen any innovation from SmallNFloppy.

Just because of those blinkers you keep wearing.

Maybe Ajax, if you're being kind. And I'm likely wrong about that.

You're wrong about everything, as usual.

 

[SG1]

It's not enough for an alternative to exist. Talk to your average
Windoze vict^H^H^H^Husers. They have been totally subjugated.
It's like people living in a dictatorship - the average joe can
do nothing about it, so he just shrugs his shoulders and gets on
with life as best he can. There is no alternative.

"In politics, perception is reality."

You really ought to read "Nineteen Eighty-Four" again.

Charlie Asking Roddles to read, that is going too far. Your average
preschooler only looks at pictures.

 

[SG1]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote


Pigs arse it was.

Roddles google ms dos the beginning
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.

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.

Gee whiz Roddles wrong again. History not your strong point.....

 

[SG1]

QDOS was a pig's arse? -- Joe

Roddles looking in a mirror....

 

[Rod Speed]

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

 

[SG1]

Joe Thompson wrote


Win had it long before that.


It didnt.


Years after the Mac first appeared.


Pity that aint multitasking.



Actually, nope.


I wasnt talking about DUN.


I wasnt talking about DUN or Winsock either.


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

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



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



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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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/

 

[SG1]

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

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.