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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52452 > unrolled thread

29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-20 13:11 -0600
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-21 09:08 +1300
      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-20 20:37 -0500
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-20 19:57 -0600
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-21 19:08 +1300
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-11-21 07:24 +0000
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping John Holt <me@foo.net> - 2013-11-21 15:21 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 20:34 -0500
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-22 02:21 +0000
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 23:24 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 23:38 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-22 15:29 +0000
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-11-22 14:55 -0500
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 00:56 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 05:43 +0100
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 18:36 +1300
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-22 01:06 -0500
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 18:20 +0000
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 11:34 -0700
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 19:22 +0000
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 16:12 -0700
                          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-23 03:34 +0000
                            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 21:36 -0700
                              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-23 12:02 -0800
                                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-23 15:58 -0700
                              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-23 22:34 +0000
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-23 20:55 +0000
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 01:51 -0600
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:28 +1300
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 01:42 -0500
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 11:49 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 11:56 -0500
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-21 09:07 -0700
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 11:53 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 11:56 -0500
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 12:30 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 13:00 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:33 +1300
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-21 15:54 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 18:47 -0600
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 11:07 +0000
      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-21 12:04 -0600
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:31 +1300
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-11-20 18:27 -0800
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "Mr. Strat" <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> - 2013-11-21 06:42 -0800

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

#52520

In article <CEB55F72.3B93F%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
<yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/11/2013 18:34, in article 221120131134470694%foo@bar.com, "Michelle
> Steiner" <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <CEB550DA.3B92B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
> > <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
> >> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>   Guidelines for judging others:
> >>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> >>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> >>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> >>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> >>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> >>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> >>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> >>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
> >> 
> >>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
> >>        can be adequately explained by religion.
> > 
> >       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
> >          can be adequately explained by political
> >          dogmatism masquerading as religion.
> 
> There is a difference?

Indeed there is.

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

#52524

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> In article <CEB55F72.3B93F%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
> <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/11/2013 18:34, in article 221120131134470694%foo@bar.com, "Michelle
>> Steiner" <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <CEB550DA.3B92B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
>>> <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
>>>> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>   Guidelines for judging others:
>>>>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
>>>>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
>>>>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
>>>>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
>>>>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
>>>>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
>>>>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
>>>>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
>>>> 
>>>>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
>>>>        can be adequately explained by religion.
>>> 
>>>       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
>>>          can be adequately explained by political
>>>          dogmatism masquerading as religion.
>> 
>> There is a difference?
> 
> Indeed there is.

What is it?

-- 
Bill Findlay

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

#52526

In article
<1642386916406860320.157033yaldnif.w-blueyonder.co.uk@news.individual.ne
t>, Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> >>>>>   Guidelines for judging others:
> >>>>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> >>>>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> >>>>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> >>>>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> >>>>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> >>>>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> >>>>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> >>>>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
> >>>> 
> >>>>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
> >>>>        can be adequately explained by religion.
> >>> 
> >>>       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
> >>>          can be adequately explained by political
> >>>          dogmatism masquerading as religion.
> >> 
> >> There is a difference?
> > 
> > Indeed there is.
> 
> What is it?

One is religion and the other is politics.

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

#52558

On 2013-11-23 04:36:11 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

>>>>> 6. Don't attribute to religion that which can be adequately explained 
>>>>> by political
>>>>> dogmatism masquerading as religion.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a difference?
>>> 
>>> Indeed there is.
>> 
>> What is it?
> 
> One is religion and the other is politics.

e.g. Muslim v. Islamist

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

#52567

In article <2013112312024974984-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> >>>>> 6. Don't attribute to religion that which can be adequately explained 
> >>>>> by political dogmatism masquerading as religion.
> >>>> 
> >>>> There is a difference?
> >>> 
> >>> Indeed there is.
> >> 
> >> What is it?
> > 
> > One is religion and the other is politics.
> 
> e.g. Muslim v. Islamist

No, e.g., Tea Party v. Christian

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

#52566

Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1642386916406860320.157033yaldnif.w-blueyonder.co.uk@news.individual.ne
>> , Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>   Guidelines for judging others:
>>>>>>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
>>>>>>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
>>>>>>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
>>>>>>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
>>>>>>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
>>>>>>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
>>>>>>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
>>>>>>        can be adequately explained by religion.
>>>>> 
>>>>>       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
>>>>>          can be adequately explained by political
>>>>>          dogmatism masquerading as religion.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a difference?
>>> 
>>> Indeed there is.
>> 
>> What is it?
> 
> One is religion and the other is politics.

A distinction without a difference.

-- 
Bill Findlay

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

#52560

Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/11/2013 18:34, in article 221120131134470694%foo@bar.com, "Michelle
> Steiner" <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <CEB550DA.3B92B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
>> <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
>>> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>   Guidelines for judging others:
>>>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
>>>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
>>>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
>>>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
>>>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
>>>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
>>>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
>>>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
>>> 
>>>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
>>>        can be adequately explained by religion.
>> 
>>       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
>>          can be adequately explained by political
>>          dogmatism masquerading as religion.
> 
> There is a difference?

Very slight 8-(

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#52472

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article
> <870820284406691443.013702recliner2-news-yahoo.co.uk@news.btinternet.com>
> , Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> On 11-20-2013, 15:08, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
>>>> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior
>>>>> there as well...
>>>> 
>>>> It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
>>>> simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
>>>> the best.
>>> 
>>> "entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of
>>> DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very
>>> impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check it
>>> out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to,
>>> either.  And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching maintainance
>>> of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded file-cabinet sized
>>> computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling bits on a control
>>> panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a CP/M-like O.S.
>>> 
>>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
>>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
>>> Microsoft Windows."
>>> 
>>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
>>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
>> 
>> Reading the linked article, it looks like both were "inspired" by Xerox
>> Parc, research, and recruited Parc staff. So MS didn't copy Apple, but
>> neither was really original either. Apple did get the Lisa out first,
>> however, but it was an expensive flop (and, yes, I did evaluate a Lisa, but
>> it didn't have any usable apps). 
>> 
>> But what most of the these articles fail to mention is that what made the
>> early Macs succeed was DTP, with low cost desktop laser printers and
>> Postscript. I was a big fan of WriteNow in the mid 1980s as it was a huge
>> improvement on the text word processors of the day.
> 
> The Apple Lisa was released on 19 January, 1983.
> 
> Windows 1.0, the first version, was released in 1985.
> 
> It's well publicised that Bill Gates used to visit Apple's HQ,
> apparently able to look at almost everything they were doing and
> talking to anyone he liked ... until Steve Jobs put a stop to it.

Yes, but the linked article points out that Win 1.0 was two years *late*,
not that it took two years to develop. It seems that one of the many
problems was that it was supposed to run on ridiculously inadequate
hardware (a twin floppy PC).

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

#52491

In article
<949608656406712962.325892recliner2-news-yahoo.co.uk@news.btinternet.com>
, Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <870820284406691443.013702recliner2-news-yahoo.co.uk@news.btinternet.com>
> > , Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>> On 11-20-2013, 15:08, Your Name wrote:
> >>>> In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> >>>> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior
> >>>>> there as well...
> >>>> 
> >>>> It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
> >>>> simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
> >>>> the best.
> >>> 
> >>> "entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of
> >>> DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very
> >>> impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check it
> >>> out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to,
> >>> either.  And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching maintainance
> >>> of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded file-cabinet sized
> >>> computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling bits on a control
> >>> panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a CP/M-like O.S.
> >>> 
> >>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> >>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> >>> Microsoft Windows."
> >>> 
> >>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> >>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a
> >>> leak.
> >> 
> >> Reading the linked article, it looks like both were "inspired" by Xerox
> >> Parc, research, and recruited Parc staff. So MS didn't copy Apple, but
> >> neither was really original either. Apple did get the Lisa out first,
> >> however, but it was an expensive flop (and, yes, I did evaluate a Lisa, but
> >> it didn't have any usable apps). 
> >> 
> >> But what most of the these articles fail to mention is that what made the
> >> early Macs succeed was DTP, with low cost desktop laser printers and
> >> Postscript. I was a big fan of WriteNow in the mid 1980s as it was a huge
> >> improvement on the text word processors of the day.
> > 
> > The Apple Lisa was released on 19 January, 1983.
> > 
> > Windows 1.0, the first version, was released in 1985.
> > 
> > It's well publicised that Bill Gates used to visit Apple's HQ,
> > apparently able to look at almost everything they were doing and
> > talking to anyone he liked ... until Steve Jobs put a stop to it.
> 
> Yes, but the linked article points out that Win 1.0 was two years *late*,
> not that it took two years to develop.

Yes, but Bill Gates would have seen the long work on the Mac / Lisa
before its public release. It's also possible that "two years late"
means the upgrade to the previous Microsoft OS was late because it had
to be redone as a mouse-driven graphical user interface.




> It seems that one of the many problems was that it was supposed to run
> on ridiculously inadequate hardware (a twin floppy PC).

That's typical Microsoft bloastware for you ... the original Mac ran
the OS off of one floppy disc, and still had room for MacWrite and
MacPaint.  :-)

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

#52468

In article <l6jo5g$2df$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> "entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of 
> DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very 
> impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check 
> it out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to, 
> either.

i went to the store many times to try the mac and it didn't crash at
all. initially there was just macwrite and macpaint to try, but it
wasn't long until there were other apps. 

> And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching 
> maintainance of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded 
> file-cabinet sized computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling 
> bits on a control panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a 
> CP/M-like O.S.

that was certainly not l33t.

> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO 
> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised 
> Microsoft Windows."
> 
> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple, 
> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.

they definitely copied apple. microsoft had early access to the mac so
they could develop mac software. bill gates wanted his own version
since apple wasn't going to license it, so he copied it.

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

#52478

On 11-21-2013, 01:42, nospam wrote:
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching
>> maintainance of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded
>> file-cabinet sized computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling
>> bits on a control panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a
>> CP/M-like O.S.
>
> that was certainly not l33t.

Are you agreeing with "far from" or did you anser before reading again?

>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
>> Microsoft Windows."
>>
>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
>
> they definitely copied apple. microsoft had early access to the mac so
> they could develop mac software. bill gates wanted his own version
> since apple wasn't going to license it, so he copied it.

They definitely copied Apple, BUT, they started on Windows before Apple 
had anything to copy.

-- 
Wes Groleau

  Guidelines for judging others:
  1. Don't attribute to malice that which
     can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
     can be adequately explained by ignorance.
  3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
     can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
  4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
     can be adequately explained by alcohol.

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

#52480

In article <l6ldja$afo$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> >> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> >> Microsoft Windows."
> >>
> >> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> >> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
> >
> > they definitely copied apple. microsoft had early access to the mac so
> > they could develop mac software. bill gates wanted his own version
> > since apple wasn't going to license it, so he copied it.
> 
> They definitely copied Apple, BUT, they started on Windows before Apple 
> had anything to copy.

no they didn't. they started when they saw what apple was working on
after apple gave them early access to the mac so that they could create
software for it. apple also gave early access to several other
companies too.

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

#52477

In article <l6jo5g$2df$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO 
> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised 
> Microsoft Windows."
> 
> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple, 
> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.

Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.

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

#52479

On 11-21-2013, 11:07, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <l6jo5g$2df$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
>> Microsoft Windows."
>>
>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
>
> Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
> Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.

Again, they started on Windows before Apple had something for them to 
copy.  And even what they did copy, they were two years late and ove 
year later than Apple.

Then again, maybe they listened to the Avis commercials and thought, 
"We're number one; we don't have to try harder."

-- 
Wes Groleau

  Guidelines for judging others:
  1. Don't attribute to malice that which
     can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
     can be adequately explained by ignorance.
  3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
     can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
  4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
     can be adequately explained by alcohol.

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

#52481

In article <l6ldpo$c04$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> >> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> >> Microsoft Windows."
> >>
> >> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> >> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
> >
> > Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
> > Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.
> 
> Again, they started on Windows before Apple had something for them to 
> copy.  And even what they did copy, they were two years late and ove 
> year later than Apple.

they started when they saw what apple had.

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

#52484

On 11-21-2013, 11:56, nospam wrote:
> In article <l6ldpo$c04$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
>>>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
>>>> Microsoft Windows."
>>>>
>>>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
>>>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
>>>
>>> Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
>>> Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.
>>
>> Again, they started on Windows before Apple had something for them to
>> copy.  And even what they did copy, they were two years late and ove
>> year later than Apple.
>
> they started when they saw what apple had.

You're saying when Apple was barely started, the promised they'd deliver 
a copy a year ahead of the original?  They HAD to have known that 
couldn't possibly keep that promise.

I always knew Bill Gates was a politician since I saw that early 
Microsoft photo.  The one with a dozen middle-aged hippies in grubbies, 
and a clean-shaven twenty-something Bill Gates in a three-piece suit.

-- 
Wes Groleau

  Guidelines for judging others:
  1. Don't attribute to malice that which
     can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
     can be adequately explained by ignorance.
  3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
     can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
  4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
     can be adequately explained by alcohol.

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

#52486

In article <l6lg08$pgr$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >>>> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> >>>> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> >>>> Microsoft Windows."
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> >>>> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a
> >>>> leak.
> >>>
> >>> Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
> >>> Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.
> >>
> >> Again, they started on Windows before Apple had something for them to
> >> copy.  And even what they did copy, they were two years late and ove
> >> year later than Apple.
> >
> > they started when they saw what apple had.
> 
> You're saying when Apple was barely started, the promised they'd deliver 
> a copy a year ahead of the original?  They HAD to have known that 
> couldn't possibly keep that promise.

microsoft first saw the mac in 1981, which is when they began working
on windows in addition to writing mac apps.

microsoft signed a noncompete in 1981, but due to a stupid oversight on
apple's part, it expired 1 year after the mac's *expected* ship date of
september 1983, not whenever it actually shipped. that allowed
microsoft announce windows in late 1983, but despite that, it didn't
actually ship until late 1985.

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

#52493

In article <l6ldpo$c04$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-21-2013, 11:07, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <l6jo5g$2df$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> >> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> >> Microsoft Windows."
> >>
> >> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> >> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
> >
> > Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh so they could release
> > Multiplan and Chart when the Macintosh itself was released.
> 
> Again, they started on Windows before Apple had something for them to 
> copy.  And even what they did copy, they were two years late and ove 
> year later than Apple.

No, Microsoft were plaaning / working on an updated operating system
that, after seeing the Mac / Lisa,  eventually became Windows. It was
"late" because it had to be completely redone.

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

#52495

On 13-11-21 15:33, Your Name wrote:

> No, Microsoft were plaaning / working on an updated operating system
> that, after seeing the Mac / Lisa,  eventually became Windows. It was
> "late" because it had to be completely redone.


Completely redone ? Nop. Windows was a DOS application with a mouse driver.

Windows NT was the first OS MS did that was not DOS based. But it did
not see widespread distribution until Windows 98 if I remember
correctly. Windows 95 was a hybrid DOS/NT.

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

#52499

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-11-21 15:33, Your Name wrote:
> 
>> No, Microsoft were plaaning / working on an updated operating system
>> that, after seeing the Mac / Lisa,  eventually became Windows. It was
>> "late" because it had to be completely redone.
> 
> 
> Completely redone ? Nop. Windows was a DOS application with a mouse driver.
> 
> Windows NT was the first OS MS did that was not DOS based. But it did
> not see widespread distribution until Windows 98 if I remember
> correctly. Windows 95 was a hybrid DOS/NT.

Win 98 was still DOS-based. The 'proper' Windows versions were NT, 2000,
XP, Vista, 7 and 8.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web