Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #722474 > unrolled thread

Key issue in physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:52 -0800
    Re: Key issue in physics mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-06 17:57 -0800
      Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:59 -0800
        Re: Key issue in physics mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 12:30 -0800
          Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 12:59 -0800
    Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 12:57 -0800
      Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 01:36 -0800
        Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 09:59 -0800
          Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:50 -0800
            Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:07 -0800
              Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:00 -0800
                Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:34 -0800
                Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 23:38 -0500
                  Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 03:58 -0800
                    Re: Key issue in physics pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-09 12:28 -0800
                  Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800
                    Re: Key issue in physics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-09 15:41 -0600
                    Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 15:00 -0800
                      Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 15:01 -0800
                        Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 19:42 -0500
                        Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 18:06 -0800
                          Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 15:05 -0800
                            Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 15:31 -0800
                              Re: Key issue in physics pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-11 20:14 -0800
                                Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 04:51 -0800
                            Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 15:36 -0800
                              Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-12 15:08 -0500
                        Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-10 18:16 -0800
                          Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 05:45 -0500
                            Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 03:19 -0800
                              Re: Key issue in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 13:45 +0000
                                Re: Key issue in physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 08:52 -0800
                                  Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 13:41 -0800
                        CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-01-17 11:56 -0800
                          Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-17 17:45 -0500
                            First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-01-17 15:21 -0800
                              Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-01-18 10:03 -0800
                                Re: Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-18 18:40 -0500
                                  You're supposed to buy all new hardware/software. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-01-18 17:31 -0800
                                    Re: You're supposed to buy all new hardware/software. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-18 21:39 -0500
                                      Re: You're supposed to buy all new hardware/software. "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-18 19:48 -0800
                                  Re: Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-18 23:08 -0700
                              Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-01-18 13:40 -0800
                                Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 16:18 -0600
                                  Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-01-18 14:48 -0800
                                  Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-19 07:05 -0500
                                    Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-01-19 12:52 -0800
                                Re: First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 15:22 -0800
                            Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-17 20:56 -0600
                              Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-18 08:48 -0500
                                Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 10:42 -0600
                                Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2019-01-18 23:14 +0100
                                  Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. PP <email2@lizards8912m.org> - 2019-01-18 22:53 +0000
                                    Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-18 18:46 -0500
                                      Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-18 23:09 -0700
                                Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-21 07:49 -0600
                                  Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-22 13:59 -0500
                                    Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-22 15:26 -0600
                                      Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. silverslimer <silver@slim.er> - 2019-01-22 20:08 -0500
                            Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-01-18 03:52 +0000
              Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 20:21 -0800
    Re: Key issue in physics "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-19 12:57 -0800
      Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 04:45 -0800
        Re: Key issue in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 15:10 +0000
          Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 13:36 -0500
            Re: Key issue in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 19:39 +0000
            Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-20 16:18 -0800
              Re: Key issue in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-21 15:04 +0000
                Re: Key issue in physics Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-01-21 13:45 -0800
              Re: Key issue in physics benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-21 16:10 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#723014

Newtonian laws were revised by myself in 1999, in my book "To the Stars!". That book was online in my "adda" website for a few years. I will post the book again, online.

The first law was revised with the deletion of the word "external" as a qualifier to force. This brings it more in line with the original Newtonian thought, in my opinion. I am sure that Newton was aware of explosions.

The second law remains unaltered.

The third law is, To every mechanical action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723089

It would nice if you left some information about whom you reply to.

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> Newtonian laws were revised by myself in 1999, in my book "To the
> Stars!". That book was online in my "adda" website for a few
> years. I will post the book again, online.

From Wikipedia, on Newton's 1st Law, the original Latin of Newton's Principia:

“ Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi
uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur
statum illum mutare. ” Translated to English, this reads:

“ Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of
moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled
to change its state by force impressed.[28] ”

> The first law was revised with the deletion of the word "external"
> as a qualifier to force. This brings it more in line with the
> original Newtonian thought, in my opinion. I am sure that Newton was
> aware of explosions.

To me, forceImpressed doesn't quite feel like forceExternal.

> The second law remains unaltered.
> 
> The third law is, To every mechanical action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's 3rd Law original Latin reads:

“ Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive
corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes
contrarias dirigi. ”

Translated to English, this reads:

“ Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
and directed to contrary parts. ”

From the original Latin to saying it in modern English. Impressive.

The one change I see/read is the addition of word “mechanical.” Sorry
to say so, but that change is never making it into any new textbooks.

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

What can I dooo0000ooo...
What can I say...
Except I want you by my side
Badfinger - Baby Blue [Lyrics] [1080p] [HD]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rVt7nZTPBA
It's all been said before, seems no one left a thing for me to say.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723096

Mahipal ji, when I use iPad I cannot get earlier comments. Just my incompetence or a limitation put by the late Steven.
As you say, I am being a strict Newtonian with the first law.
Newton had no clue about rail guns but I have.
So my qualifier to the word action in the third law.
When I make a really powerful rail gun and fire it to show lack of reaction someone may notice.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723113

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 3:31:43 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> When I make a really powerful rail gun and fire it to show lack of reaction someone may notice.

Do us all a favor, Banjo-Boy, when you fire off that really powerful rail gun that has no reaction... be sure and stand directly behind it, as close as you can. Would you do that for us?

THAT would be the ultimate put-up-or-shut-up display of all time.

SPLAT!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723133

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 3:14:54 PM UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 3:31:43 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> 
> > When I make a really powerful rail gun and fire it to show lack of reaction someone may notice.
> 
> Do us all a favor, Banjo-Boy, when you fire off that really powerful rail gun that has no reaction... be sure and stand directly behind it, as close as you can. Would you do that for us?


Certainly and most joyfully if you will stand directly before the gun when it is fired. 

> THAT would be the ultimate put-up-or-shut-up display of all time.
> 
> SPLAT!

Yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723097

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 6:05:53 PM UTC-5, Mahipal wrote:
[trim]
> > The third law is, To every mechanical action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> 
> Newton's 3rd Law original Latin reads:
> 
> “ Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive
> corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes
> contrarias dirigi. ”
> 
> Translated to English, this reads:
> 
> “ Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
> and directed to contrary parts. ”
> 
> From the original Latin to saying it in modern English. Impressive.

I forgot to write, before I hit SEND, I really don't R/W/Speak Latin.
 
> The one change I see/read is the addition of word “mechanical.” Sorry
> to say so, but that change is never making it into any new textbooks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czRsltWGhw0
Bugs Bunny in Mechanical Rabbit Lure. About a minute's time.
Timeless humour, or my jokes are a century old!

> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> What can I dooo0000ooo...
> What can I say...
> Except I want you by my side
> Badfinger - Baby Blue [Lyrics] [1080p] [HD]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rVt7nZTPBA
> It's all been said before, seems no one left a thing for me to say.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723184

On 1/11/2019 6:36 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 6:05:53 PM UTC-5, Mahipal wrote:
> [trim]
>>> The third law is, To every mechanical action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>>
>> Newton's 3rd Law original Latin reads:
>>
>> “ Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive
>> corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes
>> contrarias dirigi. ”
>>
>> Translated to English, this reads:
>>
>> “ Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
>> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
>> and directed to contrary parts. ”
>>
>>  From the original Latin to saying it in modern English. Impressive.
> 
> I forgot to write, before I hit SEND, I really don't R/W/Speak Latin.
>   
>> The one change I see/read is the addition of word “mechanical.” Sorry
>> to say so, but that change is never making it into any new textbooks.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czRsltWGhw0
> Bugs Bunny in Mechanical Rabbit Lure. About a minute's time.
> Timeless humour, or my jokes are a century old!

Jokes? This is what Rolf adopted for his entire meaning of life!


>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> What can I dooo0000ooo...
>> What can I say...
>> Except I want you by my side
>> Badfinger - Baby Blue [Lyrics] [1080p] [HD]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rVt7nZTPBA
>> It's all been said before, seems no one left a thing for me to say.
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723015

As for wiki, far too infra dig for me to create a wiki page about myself and my work. That is a job for my ardent supporters. Alas, they number only 1 as of date and that blessed guy I see in my mirror.
Facebook now is another story. I can post whatever I like on my timeline.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723032

On 1/10/2019 9:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> As for wiki, far too infra dig for me to create a wiki page about myself and my work. That is a job for my ardent supporters. Alas, they number only 1 as of date and that blessed guy I see in my mirror.
> Facebook now is another story. I can post whatever I like on my timeline.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> 
Is there anyone here who did not already know this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723034

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:45:44 PM UTC+11, benj wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 9:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > As for wiki, far too infra dig for me to create a wiki page about myself and my work. That is a job for my ardent supporters. Alas, they number only 1 as of date and that blessed guy I see in my mirror.
> > Facebook now is another story. I can post whatever I like on my timeline.
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > 
> Is there anyone here who did not already know this?

Aren't you the only one who cannot find my fb timeline?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723044

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:45:44 PM UTC+11, benj wrote:
>> On 1/10/2019 9:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> As for wiki, far too infra dig for me to create a wiki page about
>>> myself and my work. That is a job for my ardent supporters. Alas, they
>>> number only 1 as of date and that blessed guy I see in my mirror.
>>> Facebook now is another story. I can post whatever I like on my timeline.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>> 
>> Is there anyone here who did not already know this?
> 
> Aren't you the only one who cannot find my fb timeline?
> 

Me too. I don’t have a Facebook account. Why would I? I know why you do. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723056

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:45:25 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:45:44 PM UTC+11, benj wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2019 9:16 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> As for wiki, far too infra dig for me to create a wiki page about
> >>> myself and my work. That is a job for my ardent supporters. Alas, they
> >>> number only 1 as of date and that blessed guy I see in my mirror.
> >>> Facebook now is another story. I can post whatever I like on my timeline.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >>> 
> >> Is there anyone here who did not already know this?
> > 
> > Aren't you the only one who cannot find my fb timeline?
> 
> Me too. I don’t have a Facebook account. Why would I? I know why you do. 

I too have a Facebook account, but then again, I have friends and family. 
So I know why you don't. Two can play that idiotic game. FB is a tool.
 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723079

Ideally I should have a dedicated website as I once had back in 2000. Facebook timeline is an easy alternative where I know my friends will have a chance to read my words and see pictures. It is a useful tool, certainly. Then there are groups like IIT KgP Friends consisting of alumni of my alma mater. Online discussions are facilitated with pictures, links, videos, etc. Usenet offers direct access to anyone in the world. It too has great power. Plagiarism of my original ideas will be immediately exposed, so the potential crooks remain just so.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723695 — CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle.

Mahipal:
> > > didn't Bill buy DOS cheap, then licensed it to IBM.

1980, Seattle, Bill licensed "DOS" ( then vaporware ) to IBM;
to fulfill the contract, he purchased a CP/M clone from a CPU-board tester.

IBM offered customers MicroSoft's DOS or Kildall's CP/M;
CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723720 — Re: CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:56:49 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:

>Mahipal:
>> > > didn't Bill buy DOS cheap, then licensed it to IBM.
>
>1980, Seattle, Bill licensed "DOS" ( then vaporware ) to IBM;
>to fulfill the contract, he purchased a CP/M clone from a CPU-board tester.
>
>IBM offered customers MicroSoft's DOS or Kildall's CP/M;
>CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle.

Was CP/M at the time actually better than Microsoft's DOS?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723724 — First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers.

Andrzej asked:
> > IBM offered customers MicroSoft's DOS or Kildall's CP/M;
> > CP/M cost 200$ more, so MicroSoft won the battle.
> 
> Was CP/M at the time actually better than Microsoft's DOS ?

Before the IBM PC, the desktop market barely existed;
as the market grew, DOS became the superior option.
First and foremost, Microsoft sells compilers.

To this day, I prefer Microsoft Visual Studio 2017,
Community (free) Edition.   Jeff-Relf.Me/Macros.HTM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723800 — Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small.

> > Before the IBM PC, 1980, the desktop market barely existed.
> 
> Apple II

Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small;
so standards were easy to change; no longer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723863 — Re: Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:03:34 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:

>> > Before the IBM PC, 1980, the desktop market barely existed.
>> 
>> Apple II
>
>Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small;
>so standards were easy to change; no longer.

I wonder what would have happened had Apple not gone the Macintosh
route and decided to continue developing the Apple ][ line. The Apple
IIgs, from what I've seen, was fairly impressive for its time and
showed that you could easily add a GUI without compromising on
compatibility. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723878 — You're supposed to buy all new hardware/software.

Andrzej replied:
> > Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small;
> > so standards were easy to change; no longer.
> 
> I wonder what would have happened had Apple not gone the Macintosh
> route and decided to continue developing the Apple ][ line. The Apple
> IIgs, from what I've seen, was fairly impressive for its time and
> showed that you could easily add a GUI without compromising on
> compatibility. 

Apple has never cared about backwards compatibility;
you're supposed to buy all new hardware/software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723883 — Re: You're supposed to buy all new hardware/software.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:31:24 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:

>Andrzej replied:
>> > Before 1980, the desktop market was very young, very small;
>> > so standards were easy to change; no longer.
>> 
>> I wonder what would have happened had Apple not gone the Macintosh
>> route and decided to continue developing the Apple ][ line. The Apple
>> IIgs, from what I've seen, was fairly impressive for its time and
>> showed that you could easily add a GUI without compromising on
>> compatibility. 
>
>Apple has never cared about backwards compatibility;
>you're supposed to buy all new hardware/software.

The Apple ][ line DID care about compatibility actually. The Apple ///
had Apple ][ support as did the IIgs through an expansion card if I
recall. Woz's vision is very different than the one Jobs took in
requiring people to constantly buy new hardware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web